Remember me
▼ Content

Must read letter



Page 1 of 212>
Must read letter03-05-2019 12:57
Eric4898
☆☆☆☆☆
(4)
I sent my following letter to the press and government. tell me what you think?;-
Renewable Energy
Dear Editor,
In my seventy forth year, I have become increasingly frustrated and annoyed at the Government and Media attitudes towards Renewable Energy thinking that the way forward is Wind and Solar energy. The absolute truth of the fact is that they are both VERY unreliable, unpredictable and completely over engineered.
There is, however, one form of energy which is 700/800 times more powerful than wind and 2500 times greater than solar, it's an energy that is totally predictable for 20 hours per day, 365 days per year and is guaranteed never to let you down, providing the Moon stays in the sky. You may have guessed already that I am referring to Tidal Stream Energy but I should point out, at this stage, that I am not referring to Tidal barrages or tidal turbines as each destroy fish stocks or have huge impact on the environment.
I spent 15 years developing a system, addressing both the environmental impact on sea creatures and the acceptance of a construction at sea by the shore observer. A system that is simple to use and maintain. Is not over engineered as like many existing projects and would generate up to 30 Mega Watts of power per hour, unlike a wind turbine that produces 2 MW when the wind is blowing.
So far, all my correspondences to Government, Universities and local authorities have either fallen on deaf ears or they choose to ignore, for what reason I do not know. However, I do know that my system works as I have already tested a model I built which exceeded my expectations.
We are killing our world, destroying the very foundation of our existence all for a few quid today for the privileged few. I fear for my grandchildren as they deserve our generation to embrace any form of technology that will help to save our planet.
Please forward this letter to anyone you feel who has the investment capability to take my invention further. Thank you for reading..
Eric Hoare
10, PO32 6JH
East Cowes. IOW
01983 280271 or 07901604481
Email; erichoare6@talktalk.net
03-05-2019 19:04
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(599)
Here we go again... We just spent the past week or so working on a Gravity Harvesting fuel cell generator thing.

Do you have a patent number, so I can take a quick peek at what your selling? Video/pictures of the model, drawings or diagrams? I can't sell an idea I don't believe in, or on the say-so of a stranger online. Tide and wave generators have been around for a while, but don't often hear much about them, unless it's a 'revolutionary' new design, which turns out to be pretty much functionally the same, and not quite as productive as expected either. Saltwater and electricity aren't good friends, and metals that hold up well aren't cheap. This is probably one of those ideas that looks better on paper, promising as a demonstration, but not so good in a practical application.
03-05-2019 19:41
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(424)
Its a gravity fed system not a gravity harvest system. You cant harvest gravity, but you can use it. That is the name they have been using to put down my invention.

I don't know the number for his idea, but I have seen it around a lot. Its been decades since I first heard of it, and the problem they said then was that it didn't have enough power because the tides were too small.
03-05-2019 20:06
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7663)
dehammer wrote:
Its a gravity fed system not a gravity harvest system. You cant harvest gravity, but you can use it. That is the name they have been using to put down my invention.

You said yourself that you are using gravity to power your machine. It's a 'gravity harvester' machine. It's just another perpetual motion machine. It won't work.
dehammer wrote:
I don't know the number for his idea, but I have seen it around a lot. Its been decades since I first heard of it, and the problem they said then was that it didn't have enough power because the tides were too small.

Tidal energy is enormous. The problem is finding a good anchorage for such a thing. Tides will tend to rip the machine right off it's foundations. You can't use drag anchor. It's not good enough.

Also, salt water and machinery is very bad on the machinery. It's a constant job just keeping a modern ship or oil platform functioning due to the corrosion at sea.

Even in the tall ship days, when ships were made of wood, corrosion was a constant battle for a sailor.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 03-05-2019 20:07
03-05-2019 20:46
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(424)
This was tested decades ago, and it was found to not produce enough energy to be worth it.
03-05-2019 22:10
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7663)
dehammer wrote:
This was tested decades ago, and it was found to not produce enough energy to be worth it.


It produces more energy then your machine will.


The Parrot Killer
03-05-2019 23:32
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(424)
Says the guy that thinks that the words "laws of thermodynamics" means what ever he wants it to mean.
04-05-2019 00:16
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7663)
dehammer wrote:
Says the guy that thinks that the words "laws of thermodynamics" means what ever he wants it to mean.


What about dU=Q-W do you not understand?
What about entropy do you not understand?


The Parrot Killer
04-05-2019 00:18
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(599)
I don't know, but tides and waves are two seperate things, might not always work out right for power generation. Sure, the tide is predictable, but not waves. Storms down here generate some impressive waves. Big storms generate a storm-surge, which is a lot of water rushing inland, quick. Sometimes strong enough bring an old shipwreck carcass on to the beach. Doubt a tide generator would be a good choice for florida. Water can be incredibly powerful stuff, depending on the force driving it. And Climatology keeps trying to sell CO2 as the most destructive molecule known to man...
04-05-2019 02:05
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7663)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't know, but tides and waves are two seperate things, might not always work out right for power generation. Sure, the tide is predictable, but not waves. Storms down here generate some impressive waves. Big storms generate a storm-surge, which is a lot of water rushing inland, quick. Sometimes strong enough bring an old shipwreck carcass on to the beach. Doubt a tide generator would be a good choice for florida. Water can be incredibly powerful stuff, depending on the force driving it. And Climatology keeps trying to sell CO2 as the most destructive molecule known to man...


Again, it comes down to anchoring the machine and dealing with the corrosion.

It's a lot of money for the energy you get. It's just easier to burn the coal, oil, natural gas, or whatever you have a lot of and use that.


The Parrot Killer
04-05-2019 17:41
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(599)
Tide and Wave generators are going to be sort of another niche alternative, like wind and solar. Might be useful in some places, fairly useless in others, with some ecological impact. Fortunately the oceans are huge, and sea critters are plentiful. Anything impacted will either find a new place to live, or that local population will die out, but still plenty of places for the species to continue to thrive.

Doubtful, that ocean power plants will replace traditional carbon-based generators on a cost basis though. They will always be expensive to build, place, and frequently replace/maintain. Like most alternatives, ocean power is intermittent, there are short and long periods where little or no power is generated. The variable power supply, and only semi-predictable demand, is going to really complicate the power grid scheme we've been using. It's a little scary, since going 100% alternative would mean that on the consumer end, we could never really know when our power is going to get cut off, or for how long. Some people and locations, which require continuous power, will get priority services, while use poor taxpayers will be left in the dark, until the supply comes back up, to distribute to all customers. I think this failure is going to weigh heavy on the IPCC, as they attempt a total ban on carbon-based fuels.

Individuals, will need to go back to relying on burning wood, for their heating and cooking needs. Guess we might be globally warm enough by then, if the predictions come true, that heating won't be an issue for most people. I mostly run the heat here only as comfort, and occasionally, could get by just fine without it. Couple hundred miles north, it's not a choice, it's survival. Burning wood, releases CO2, and quite a few other things, not quite as clean.

The IPCC is also supporting the capture and storage of CO2, which is insane. Don't we need the O2 portion of those molecules to survive? Plants, specifically the wood, we are going to need to burn, to survive the frequent blackouts, needs the CO2 to grow, so we can chop it up and burn. We need the O2 to breath, plants breath CO2, and we need the plants for food, and to burn. Isn't messing with things vital to our survival insane? I really have trouble grasping how educated people of science, could so carelessly disregard the impact of their agenda, and so many could be blind to the facts. Sparing future generations a few comfort degrees, they our willing to kill us all...
04-05-2019 19:06
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7663)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Tide and Wave generators are going to be sort of another niche alternative, like wind and solar. Might be useful in some places, fairly useless in others, with some ecological impact. Fortunately the oceans are huge, and sea critters are plentiful. Anything impacted will either find a new place to live, or that local population will die out, but still plenty of places for the species to continue to thrive.

Doubtful, that ocean power plants will replace traditional carbon-based generators on a cost basis though. They will always be expensive to build, place, and frequently replace/maintain. Like most alternatives, ocean power is intermittent, there are short and long periods where little or no power is generated. The variable power supply, and only semi-predictable demand, is going to really complicate the power grid scheme we've been using. It's a little scary, since going 100% alternative would mean that on the consumer end, we could never really know when our power is going to get cut off, or for how long. Some people and locations, which require continuous power, will get priority services, while use poor taxpayers will be left in the dark, until the supply comes back up, to distribute to all customers. I think this failure is going to weigh heavy on the IPCC, as they attempt a total ban on carbon-based fuels.

Individuals, will need to go back to relying on burning wood, for their heating and cooking needs. Guess we might be globally warm enough by then, if the predictions come true, that heating won't be an issue for most people. I mostly run the heat here only as comfort, and occasionally, could get by just fine without it. Couple hundred miles north, it's not a choice, it's survival. Burning wood, releases CO2, and quite a few other things, not quite as clean.

The IPCC is also supporting the capture and storage of CO2, which is insane. Don't we need the O2 portion of those molecules to survive? Plants, specifically the wood, we are going to need to burn, to survive the frequent blackouts, needs the CO2 to grow, so we can chop it up and burn. We need the O2 to breath, plants breath CO2, and we need the plants for food, and to burn. Isn't messing with things vital to our survival insane? I really have trouble grasping how educated people of science, could so carelessly disregard the impact of their agenda, and so many could be blind to the facts. Sparing future generations a few comfort degrees, they our willing to kill us all...


Don't worry. The IPCC has no power to terraform the Earth or any other planet. They have zero ability to really affect anything about CO2 concentrations.

They can't control the energy markets either, much as they would wish to. The energy markets are a lot bigger than they are.


The Parrot Killer
04-05-2019 19:19
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(424)
IPCC has not power period.
04-05-2019 19:21
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7663)
dehammer wrote:
IPCC has not power period.


They have enough to be an irritant. They have enough to **** up international trade some.


The Parrot Killer
04-05-2019 20:19
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(424)
you can squash insects, but they still are an irritant. They can also !@#$ up international trade.

Come to think of it....
04-05-2019 22:09
Eric4898
☆☆☆☆☆
(4)
""YE WHO HAVE LITTLE FAITH"" You have a lot to say about my invetion without knowing the first thing about it. The only tidal energy projects you will find on the internet are tidal turbines or propellers with the generator stuck on the back, (under water). Mine is nothing like that and the actual generator producing the 30MWPH is above the surface of the water and is produced by a 2 knot tide using 144 square food x 8 sections but that's not all as my rig has a further secret known only to me which increases the kinetic energy by 4 times.
My name is not Dyson and I don't have pots of money to pay for Patents, anyway who would, an oil rig doesn't have a Patent after all who whant's to copy it.
With modern materials things can last under the sea for years without any corrosion so stop coming up with pathetic statements. As I said, I am 74 and don't need negative things so if you want to know more. contact me. if not then keep sarcastic comments to yourself..
RE: IT'S NOT A GRAVITY CELL04-05-2019 22:23
Eric4898
☆☆☆☆☆
(4)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Here we go again... We just spent the past week or so working on a Gravity Harvesting fuel cell generator thing.

Do you have a patent number, so I can take a quick peek at what your selling? Video/pictures of the model, drawings or diagrams? I can't sell an idea I don't believe in, or on the say-so of a stranger online. Tide and wave generators have been around for a while, but don't often hear much about them, unless it's a 'revolutionary' new design, which turns out to be pretty much functionally the same, and not quite as productive as expected either. Saltwater and electricity aren't good friends, and metals that hold up well aren't cheap. This is probably one of those ideas that looks better on paper, promising as a demonstration, but not so good in a practical application.
04-05-2019 22:47
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(599)
dehammer wrote:
IPCC has not power period.


They have the power of propaganda. The the IPCC has no power or control, they do influence some people that do. There is a lot of money being shifted around, so it appeals to the greedy. Some government see new taxes, and new ways to limit freedom, more control over people's lives. Eco-terrorist see a new tool to protect the planet, though mostly, they just want your money, or to extort money from companies that wish to build something, or use a natural resource, in undeveloped areas. I don't believe most people are buying the CO2 crap, but they do see an opportunity to profit in some way from the propaganda.
04-05-2019 23:22
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(599)
Eric4898 wrote:
""YE WHO HAVE LITTLE FAITH"" You have a lot to say about my invetion without knowing the first thing about it. The only tidal energy projects you will find on the internet are tidal turbines or propellers with the generator stuck on the back, (under water). Mine is nothing like that and the actual generator producing the 30MWPH is above the surface of the water and is produced by a 2 knot tide using 144 square food x 8 sections but that's not all as my rig has a further secret known only to me which increases the kinetic energy by 4 times.
My name is not Dyson and I don't have pots of money to pay for Patents, anyway who would, an oil rig doesn't have a Patent after all who whant's to copy it.
With modern materials things can last under the sea for years without any corrosion so stop coming up with pathetic statements. As I said, I am 74 and don't need negative things so if you want to know more. contact me. if not then keep sarcastic comments to yourself..


Sorry for the sarcasm, bad habit of mine. Just bad timing, since there was another thread going for a week or so, about another planet saving energy invention. Yours, at least has some potential for producing usable electricity. Guess at 74, and no patent, you have no financial ambitions for your invention. So why keep it a secret? It'll take years, 15-20 years to actually get something built and producing. You need to gain support, funding approval, lots of studies and research, a site needs to be selected to build on, whole other round of studies, design changes to fit the application, and local building requirements. Since you seek to get the government involved, they have a process for selecting who gets the contract to build things. So far, most of the folks involved, have no vested interest in getting anything done in a hurry, some might be inclined, for a price.

So far, there seems to be only a few locations using wave/tide power production, and those fell way short of the output promised. But still, they got built, and do produce a usable amount of electricity, not a total loss. It's not really a new concept, I remember reading about it in high school, almost 40 years ago. No one design has shown to be a clear leader in the technology, so you still have a shot at it, nobody is thrilled with the results, people looking for a better design. It's a long, and expensive experiment, difficult to get the support you need, to even get started.

If you just want to see it built, and hopefully save the planet, or at least provide a viable alternative power production, you should just put it all out there, maybe generate enough interest, to get it into the right hands, with the desire to see the project through.
05-05-2019 00:21
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(424)
So a 74 year old that is trying to push an invention without expecting to make money is different than a 60 year old showing that if people seriously believed in global warming, they have a way to do it?

Why is it better that a 74 year old talks about an invention he doesn't expect to make money than a 60 year old not expecting to ever get any money showing the hypocrisy of a group demanding we give up our money, rights and freedoms instead of using a proven design that could get rid of ALL carbon emission?
05-05-2019 01:17
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1140)
The difference?? The 74 year old has identified a HUGE energy source. He is trying to harness a small portion of it.

You have designed a contraption that uses more than it makes. You have proven nothing until we actually see it work.
05-05-2019 01:21
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(424)
Answer this question. IF you have water above a 250 foot drop and you run it though a pipe to a turbine, attached to a generator, will it make electricity?

Here is a more important question. IF you KNEW that the entire planet was going to become uninhabitable in 100 years, unless a solution to a problem was found would you not try EVERYTHING possible, no matter how unlikely, to find a solution?
Edited on 05-05-2019 01:26
05-05-2019 03:48
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(599)
dehammer wrote:
So a 74 year old that is trying to push an invention without expecting to make money is different than a 60 year old showing that if people seriously believed in global warming, they have a way to do it?

Why is it better that a 74 year old talks about an invention he doesn't expect to make money than a 60 year old not expecting to ever get any money showing the hypocrisy of a group demanding we give up our money, rights and freedoms instead of using a proven design that could get rid of ALL carbon emission?


At 74, and with an idea and working model, might sell the invention eventually, but lot of competition with similar designs. I don't know if he wants to make money, or just see it built. I wouldn't expect to make money on it, at 74. You gave a patent, and details, he hasn't given much at all for information.

I don't think there are all that many people who truly believe we are going to burn up over CO2 emissions. It's fun to be trendy, and profitable, when it's just talk and discussion. When it gets down to the taxes and dirty work, most of the trendy folks are going abandon ship. It's not popular to be the person responsible for bad things, like aggressive taxation, energy shortages, higher prices on everything, and so much more.

Tide and wave power generation has already been proven to work, but a whole lot of room for improvement. Your gravity fed device has never been built, even though the idea was patented, and publicly available since 1979.
05-05-2019 03:57
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(424)
I noticed you still can not answer the question.
05-05-2019 04:34
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(599)
dehammer wrote:
I noticed you still can not answer the question.


Sorry, thought bother questions were rhetorical. Which question did you wan answer. Thought I addressed both...
05-05-2019 05:39
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(424)
Start with this question.
Here is a more important question. IF you KNEW that the entire planet was going to become uninhabitable in 100 years, unless a solution to a problem was found would you not try EVERYTHING possible, no matter how unlikely, to find a solution?
05-05-2019 07:33
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(599)
Nope. I would choose the most likely options, to solve the problem. I don't panic easily, and beside, 100 years is past my shelf date. I would want to waste a lot of time and resources on low probability schemes. 100 years, means you need the working solution well before then. Can't keep trying random ideas, right up to doomsday. Also have to make sure the cure, isn't worse than the disease. Like Climatology is focused on CO2. It's not enough to reduce emissions, they also want to remove and store it from the atmosphere, much faster than plants would do naturally. This is all to prevent a possible, global, average, temperature increase of 2-3 degrees, over a hundred year period. That isn't even an issue of any concern, we get much larger temperature changes daily. Average can mean many things, most wouldn't be such a bad thing.

Trying anything, is panic, fear, usually a waste of time and energy. You get more done if you remain calm, and carefully choose the most productive options.
05-05-2019 07:58
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(424)
The point is, the alarmist are demanding that we give up our right, privileges and freedoms to stop this.

But if there exist something already that can do it, don't you think its rather hypocritical for them to demand people that do not believe their religion give up everything rather than fix it themselves?
05-05-2019 18:39
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(599)
There is no problem to fix, nor are they going to achieve there goals by actually doing anything. While everyone is arguing and discussing whether there is a problem, and what can be done about it, there are people demanding action, now. To quiet the unrest, and be politically correct, money is moved around (stolen). Nobody is noticing the theft, as most people believe it's being used for something important, that they don't really understand, but feel comforted that it's being worked on. You've said that you idea has never been built, so it doesn't exist. Plenty of other ideas out there that look a lot better on paper. There are some semi-functional scale models, with claims of greater output, if built on a much larger scale (never seems to work that way). It's unlikely that the fighting and arguing will end anytime soon, somebody will eventually blow the whistler, and have proof, that this was all a scam, entirely intentional, not just some misguided science mistake. There have already been a few slip-ups, which they managed to smooth over, but luck won't hold out.
05-05-2019 19:35
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7663)
Eric4898 wrote:
""YE WHO HAVE LITTLE FAITH"" You have a lot to say about my invetion without knowing the first thing about it. The only tidal energy projects you will find on the internet are tidal turbines or propellers with the generator stuck on the back, (under water). Mine is nothing like that and the actual generator producing the 30MWPH is above the surface of the water and is produced by a 2 knot tide using 144 square food x 8 sections but that's not all as my rig has a further secret known only to me which increases the kinetic energy by 4 times.
My name is not Dyson and I don't have pots of money to pay for Patents, anyway who would, an oil rig doesn't have a Patent after all who whant's to copy it.
With modern materials things can last under the sea for years without any corrosion so stop coming up with pathetic statements. As I said, I am 74 and don't need negative things so if you want to know more. contact me. if not then keep sarcastic comments to yourself..


You can't increase kinetic energy using any kind of machine. The kinetic energy available is what is available. You can't create energy out of nothing.

Since you won't discuss your design, there is nothing to discuss. I understand your desire to keep your secret process secret, but you are going to have to tell an investor at some point.

I really don't care if you hear negative things at age 74 or not. That's the sound of a whiner. If you go into any kind of business, you WILL hear LOTS of negative things. Comes with the territory, I'm afraid.


The Parrot Killer
05-05-2019 19:37
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7663)
HarveyH55 wrote:
dehammer wrote:
IPCC has not power period.


They have the power of propaganda. The the IPCC has no power or control, they do influence some people that do. There is a lot of money being shifted around, so it appeals to the greedy. Some government see new taxes, and new ways to limit freedom, more control over people's lives. Eco-terrorist see a new tool to protect the planet, though mostly, they just want your money, or to extort money from companies that wish to build something, or use a natural resource, in undeveloped areas. I don't believe most people are buying the CO2 crap, but they do see an opportunity to profit in some way from the propaganda.


Governments that are using the IPCC as an excuse to take liberty from their citizens would have taken that liberty anyway. The IPCC isn't the cause, it's just the excuse.


The Parrot Killer
05-05-2019 19:40
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7663)
dehammer wrote:
So a 74 year old that is trying to push an invention without expecting to make money is different than a 60 year old showing that if people seriously believed in global warming, they have a way to do it?

Why is it better that a 74 year old talks about an invention he doesn't expect to make money than a 60 year old not expecting to ever get any money showing the hypocrisy of a group demanding we give up our money, rights and freedoms instead of using a proven design that could get rid of ALL carbon emission?


What's wrong with carbon? For that matter, what's wrong with carbon dioxide? Why would anyone want to get rid of either of these materials?


The Parrot Killer
05-05-2019 19:43
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7663)
dehammer wrote:
Answer this question. IF you have water above a 250 foot drop and you run it though a pipe to a turbine, attached to a generator, will it make electricity?

No.

YOU answer the question put to you:
Where is water above a 250 drop coming from? Where is the energy to put that water there coming from?

You chanting your strawman is annoying.

dehammer wrote:
Here is a more important question. IF you KNEW that the entire planet was going to become uninhabitable in 100 years, unless a solution to a problem was found would you not try EVERYTHING possible, no matter how unlikely, to find a solution?


You can keep your fundamentalist beliefs to yourself. You are not a prophet. You are not a seer. You are predicting that which is most improbable.


The Parrot Killer
05-05-2019 19:44
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7663)
dehammer wrote:
I noticed you still can not answer the question.


Evasion. Answer his question he put to you.


The Parrot Killer
05-05-2019 19:45
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7663)
dehammer wrote:
The point is, the alarmist are demanding that we give up our right, privileges and freedoms to stop this.

But if there exist something already that can do it, don't you think its rather hypocritical for them to demand people that do not believe their religion give up everything rather than fix it themselves?


Stop what? What is there to stop?

A solution in search of a problem is the most useless of inventions.


The Parrot Killer
05-05-2019 19:48
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(424)
HarveyH55 wrote:
There is no problem to fix, ...
There is a problem, but it isn't the climate. Just look at the people trying to get elected to president. They are trying to push us farther and farther towards socialism. THAT is the problem.
05-05-2019 19:59
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7663)
dehammer wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
There is no problem to fix, ...
There is a problem, but it isn't the climate. Just look at the people trying to get elected to president. They are trying to push us farther and farther towards socialism. THAT is the problem.


Personally, I think what is happening to the Democratic party is hilarious. This next election cycle will be good popcorn eating entertainment while the Democrats destroy their chances still further.

Their hatred is obvious, and one nice thing about so many radicals is that radicals are always against other radicals.

The media is going nuts because they are losing power and influence. They are not the kingmakers they think they are.


The Parrot Killer
05-05-2019 20:36
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(424)
There is evidence that there is a cycle of about 80 years (4 generation) that leads to a war ever 80 years or so. 1940's saw ww2 (1939-1945). 1860's saw the civil war (1861-1865). 1780's saw the revolutionary war (1775-1783). I half way expect that WHEN Trump is reelected, there will be an assassination attempt on him. Successful or not, it will have riots in the streets and very possibly a civil war.
05-05-2019 23:13
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7663)
dehammer wrote:
There is evidence that there is a cycle of about 80 years (4 generation) that leads to a war ever 80 years or so. 1940's saw ww2 (1939-1945). 1860's saw the civil war (1861-1865). 1780's saw the revolutionary war (1775-1783). I half way expect that WHEN Trump is reelected, there will be an assassination attempt on him. Successful or not, it will have riots in the streets and very possibly a civil war.


Possibly. However, you are forgetting all the other wars fought in between.


The Parrot Killer
05-05-2019 23:36
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(424)
No, the theory is that these wars are difference because of the pattern of the generations.
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate Must read letter:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Our leaders should read this204-12-2018 23:19
An open letter to the Prime Minister on the climate crisis, from 154 scientists - August 24, 20161216-12-2017 01:03
Letter to NASA From Skeptical NASA Employees426-07-2017 02:13
Read this and think4924-09-2016 06:26
An open letter to all members of Climate-debate.com7202-11-2015 22:55
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact