🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 14:22:34 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
<grahamcooper7@gmail.com>:

>>>>>> On 10/07/2012 1:36 AM, Graham Cooper wrote:
>>
>>>>>> The H2 engine gives off WATER VAPOUR for exhaust! �It's clean!
>
>LOOK ABOVE!

Been there; done that; pointed out your error ("It's
clean!") several times, as did Sylvia. In fact, her
response, which you apparently fail to understand, is right
below:

>> >>> >> >> >>>>> An H2 burning air breathing internal combustion engine gives of oxides
>> >>> >> >> >>>>> of nitrgoen.
>>
>> >>> >> >> >>>>> Sylvia.

So let's look again at everything related to how "clean" an
H2-burning IC engine is when using air as the oxidizer
source...

>> >>> >> >> >>>> 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?
>>
>> >>How do you get Nitrates from H2 and O2?
>>
>> >Actually, "oxides of nitrogen". From Sylvia's comment at the
>> >top of this post:
>>
>> >"An H2 burning air breathing internal combustion engine
>> >gives of oxides of nitrogen." (Well, "nitrgoen", but we all
>> >get our fnigers out of sync occasionally.)
>>
>> >Nitrogen makes up 80% of air, and the flame temperatures
>> >associated with burning H2 in air guarantee that NOx will
>> >form.
>>
>> >Any more attempts to evade the issue that air-breathing H2
>> >engines are *not* clean?
>>
>> [Crickets...]
>>
>> Run away! Run away!

>you constantly rearrange facts and drivel non existent arguments.

What facts? And what "rearrangement"? Your claim is that
H2-burning IC engines are "clean". They're not, unless
combustion takes place in pure O2.

>H2 is not only EFFICIENT AND CHEAP!  It's FREE!

Really? "FREE!"? No cost at all, for production, storage or
distribution? Do you know anything about the issues involved
with the storage of hydrogen?

>Imagine if a solar panel (a sheet of silicon - like putting cardboard
>in perspex)

There's a bit more to it than that ("cardboard"?), but I
wouldn't expect you to know anything about the cost of
producing high-purity silicon or of using it to build
photovoltaic panels.

>was $5/square meter?

Imagine if a bullfrog had wings so he wouldn't bump his ass
when he jumps. 

>The Petrol Engine is only getting 30% of the chemical energy from
>fuel.
>
>The H2 comes from RAINWATER !!!
>Electrolysis is powered by the SUN !!!
>
>You don't need H2 production at night!  That's the point!  It's stored
>SOLAR ENERGY.

Irrelevant; the issue is whether H2-burning IC engines are
inherently clean, even if using air for the oxidizer source.
They're not.

>O2 (if it's even needed)

It is if you want your H2-burning IC engine to be clean.

> comes from the OTHER ELECTRODE
>produced at the same ratio that it's used for power generation.

That's quite a dream world you inhabit: Solar panels are
"FREE!", the infrastructure required to convert their output
to a usable form for distribution is "FREE!", the storage
facilities and equipment to store the gases are "FREE!"...

In fact, everything about converting from fossil fuels to
hydrogen is apparently, in your imagination, "FREE!".
-- 

Bob C.

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