Are here, and scientists don't know why yet!

Which is also science and passion.

Why complaining?

Then it must be the one and only truth!

Courage is to make a real smartwatch with a SIM and use a google glass-like as the user interface. Anything else is just marketing, aka a way to squeeze money from users.

It is stupidity. We already struggle to keep up with the iPhone battery. Now we'll struggle also with the wireless earbuds. Yes, it's stupidity. iPhone 8 will sport back the 3.5mm socket.

Until sunk. Then IP00.

On Z80

Those "scientists" don't say from where the hydrogen is taken, despite this is a key point. Period.
And if it's taken from air water, there should be also plenty of O2 also produced. But this is not mentioned.
So H2 must come from somewhere else. That is not mentioned as well. This is what I am questioning.
Then, you my friendly moderator, please take into consideration if it's more important the moon I am pointing at, or the finger I am using to point.

That's a completely different point.
I agree with you about the car scrapping and using that technology (provided that it really works as advised).
But the point here is the energy source in general: there are not just cars that need energy.

That's correct. What's wrong is all the mentioning about CO2 sequestration.
Otherwise you can revert to natural wood/bamboo growing as energy source: it sequestrates CO2, stores energy for later use, produces O2 and food...

Well, the original article puts a lot of emphasis on the sequestration process and I am saying that those statements make no sense.
Electricity that's not produced by burning stuff (photovoltaic panels, windmills, nuclear plants) is much better as there is no CO2 emission at all.

The amounts of water in the air is highy variable, so would the amount of fuel produced and the effectivenss of these cells.
For example, in the Sahara desert as close as possible to the equator you have plenty of sun light, but very little water vapor in the air. While photovoltaic would be great there, this solution would be really bad.
So, why not mentioning at all from where the hydrogen is taken?

The article says there's no need for water, seawater, pisswater or anything else containing hydrogen.
It says you get hydrogen ... out of thin air!

Can you smartass moderator see any flaming in these replies?
If anything that contradicts (or questions) the main topic is flamebait or troll, then you are done with free speach.