🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jul 17, 4:04 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 14:22:34 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
> <grahamcoop...@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


OK I admit it, you were wrong I was right.

Try finding something that contravenes what I wrote next time!


*****

All energy comes from the mass of the Universe
collapsing in on itself


gravity -> suns ->  H->He  -> light

light -> planets -> solar panel / plant leaves

solar panel + water -> H2 + O2 -> vroom!

plant leaves + water + CO2 -> C6 H12 O6 glucose -> yumm!

million year old plant leaves -> petrol -> old smokers #$#$@%


*****

Herc