🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 12:59:47 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
<grahamcooper7@gmail.com>:

>On Jul 12, 5:16�am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 23:18:32 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
>> <grahamcoop...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jul 11, 10:18�am, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:
>> >> On 11/07/2012 6:26 AM, Graham Cooper wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Jul 11, 2:42 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >> >> On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 19:43:55 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> >> >> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
>> >> >> <grahamcoop...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> >> >>> On Jul 10, 12:04 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> >> >>>> In sci.physics Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >> >>>>> On 10/07/2012 1:36 AM, Graham Cooper wrote:
>>
>> >> >>>>>> The H2 engine gives off WATER VAPOUR for exhaust! �It's clean!
>>
>> >> >>>>> An H2 burning air breathing internal combustion engine gives of oxides
>> >> >>>>> of nitrgoen.
>>
>> >> >>>>> Sylvia.
>>
>> >> >>>> And LOTS of them due to the flame temperatures.
>>
>> >> >>> not mentioned in Wikipedia.
>>
>> >> >> So? Learn a bit of chemistry; Wiki isn't a comprehensive
>> >> >> source.
>>
>> >> > What is the Toxicity of the Nitrous compounds. �It's a secondary
>> >> > reaction not even worth a mention in the list of hurdles.
>>
>> >> Perhaps it's not, but an engine that emits oxides of nitrogen cannot
>> >> reasobably be called clean, which is what you did.
>> >Ohhh sorrrrry chops.. � here pull my finger!
>>
>> Why, do you want to emit sulfur dioxide? Anyway, nice
>> tapdance around the fact that your claim was refuted.

>What claim?  exactly.

ADD getting you down? It's right there at the top: "The H2
engine gives off WATER VAPOUR for exhaust! �It's clean!"
Although the first sentence is correct (but would also be
correct for any existing IC engine, since one of the exhaust
components resulting from burning hydrocarbons is water,
making it irrelevant), the second is not, since NOx isn't
"clean" by anyone's definition.

>Your claim is not even listed in Wikipedia as a hurdle.

Missed that part about Wiki not being a comprehensive
source, did you? ADD again? Or did you actually mean
"relatively clean" and just got carried away by the wonder
of it all?
-- 

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
                          - McNameless