On 2005-07-16, charliew2 <charliew2@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Now - in your defense: appealing to a dictionary definition in this NG is
stupid. It is entirely obvious that Clint doesn't realize that it takes
the burning of a LOT of some other fuel to produce the energy
conversion(s) that it takes to produce the hydrogen that he seems so
proud of. In fact, to my knowledge, there are no hydrogen deposits
anywhere on earth - all hydrogen is currently "locked up" in composites
which require a net energy input to liberate.
Where do you get off stating what I do and do not realize? That's why we
have dictionaries. To define terms. If you insist on contradicting what
the dictionary claims then that is your problem. The definition doesn't
say anything about whether or not more energy is used in the process to
create the substance, clear and simple. Get off your pedantic high horses
and just get over it.
-Clint