On Mar 6, 9:22*pm, Deadrat wrote:
harry k wrote :





On Mar 6, 8:56*am, Deadrat wrote:
harry k wrote
innews:7a075188-7bc7-4bb4-89d6-c3
:

On Mar 5, 9:19*pm, Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,

*Deadrat wrote:
Smitty Two wrote in
news

In article ,
*Deadrat wrote:

Smitty Two wrote in
news

In article ,
*Deadrat wrote:

Steve Barker wrote in
om:

Deadrat wrote:
richard wrote in
m:

On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 20:54:45 -0700, Tony Hwang
wrote:

Zorro the Geek wrote:
wrote in message
om...
I filled the gas on my lawnmower and spilled some
gas on i
t
and it was dripping on my lawn. *I didnt want the
gas to kill my lawn so I quickly put on the gas cap
and tossed a match on the mower deck to burn off
the gas. *Somehow th
e
gas in the tank started on fire too, and my mower
exploded and burned up, also burning down my garden
shed. I only wanted to burn off that spilled gas
and I put the gas cap on tightly. *Why did the gas
tank explode and burn too? Now my whole lawn is
burned up and ruined. *I am really upset. *I think
the gas ta
nk
on th mower was defective,
and
on Tuesday I am calling my lawyer to sue the
manufacturer of the mower.

Ralph W.
Tuesday is the best day to call lawyers.

Hmmm,
Fool's way of learning a lesson. Or poor troll.
Better call a lawyer who has same IQ as yours, LOL!

Most likely troll.

Almost surely.

*People who know, know that gasoline does not explode..

Wrong. *As usual. *Liquid gasoline burns; gasoline vapo
r m
ixed
with air explodes. *If the latter weren't true, then
internal
combustion engines couldn't use gasoline.

Also that you need a higher temperature than a match
to get it
to burn at all.

Wrong. *As usual. *A match flame is surprisingly hot, c
ert
ainly
higher than the temperature at which paper burns, which
as we all know is 451F. *Matches don't give off much
heat since they're so small, but gasoline is highly
flammable in the presence of oxygen. Please don't try
to confirm this on your own.

even an air/fuel mixture of gasoline does NOT explode.
*It burns
rapidly. *This is the reason the internal combustion
engines runs and does not explode. *you are wrong.

I was wrong once.

1967.

March.

First week.

If you'd like to argue that an air/fuel mixture of
gasoline does "NOT" explode, then you want semantics, down
the hall, first door on the left. This is abuse.

Steve is correct, there is no "explosion" involved in the
internal combustion engine. That isn't "semantics," that's
using the correc
t
word.

I love it. *This really is the day for irony. *It's not "sema
nti
cs,"
the poster says, just using the "correct" word.

Well, as long as it isn't semantics.

This thread has largely focused on the differences between
the two phenomena, so this isn't the time and place to use
the terms i
n
a casually interchangeable way.

Which two phenomena? *Burning and exploding? *You don't say.

But, please, be sure not to define your terms. *We wouldn't
wan
t
t
o
get into semantics. *Let's just say that putting a match to a
pool of
gasoline gets you a quantifiably different phenomenon from
putting a match to a mixture of oxygen and gasoline vapor.

Liquids don't burn, Mr. Rat. When you put a match to a pool of
gasoline, you are igniting the vapors emanating from it.

Of course, and nothing I wrote says otherwise. *When you put a
match to a
pool of gasoline, the phenomenon you get is the result of the
combustion
of the vapors from the surface. *When you put a match to an
enclosed mixture of gasoline vapor and oxygen, you get a
different phenomenon.

As far as the meaning of the words "semantics," "burn," and
"explode,
"
as well as the theory and operation of an internal combustion
engine, you're free to do your own research, or defend your
own ignorance as you see fit.

It's your claim that the words in use are in contradiction to
their meanings. *Thus the burdens of production and proof rest
with you.
*
Your refusal or inability to defend your position is noted.

Yes, I'm still beating my wife.

Thanks for sharing. *But while I have no idea whether you beat you
wife or not, I certainly can tell bald statements without evidence or
argument.
My understanding of "burn" and "explode" were passed on to me by
my father, a PhD university chemistry professor.

Oh, well. *In *that* case, you must be correct. *In cyberspace,
anyone can have a "PhD university chemistry professor" for a father.

You're free to assign
your own definitions to the terms, or pervert the dictionary
definitions in any way you like.

I'll repeat my claim for you as well:

quote
When you put a match to a pool of gasoline, the phenomenon you get is
the
result of the combustion of the vapors from the surface. *When you
put a
match to an enclosed mixture of gasoline vapor and oxygen, you get a
[quantitatively] different phenomenon.
/quote

Based on that understanding, and the reading of many texts on
automobiles, I contend that the mixture of gasoline and AIR, which
is a far cry from OXYGEN, that *combusts* in an internal
*combustion* engine, does NOT explode. It uh, combusts. Burns.

And I'll extend the same offer: *Please continue to make bald
statements
without argument or evidence, and claim that your talk of combusts,
burns, and explodes isn't a semantic argument.

You may also continue to make claims of erudition on your part and on
the part of members of your extended family

"Nicht," I believe, is the spelling you were after in your
humorous slur. But you're as free to rewrite the German language
as you are the English dictionary, I imagine.

Actually the spelling I was after is "nix." *It isn't real German of
course, but English slang meaning "it makes no difference." *You got
the
point that it was supposed to be "humorous," but you still decided to
lecture me on German vocabulary. *Amazing. *And somehow you've also
got
the idea that it's a slur. *For something comparable, consider the
British translation of the German motto as "Got mittens."

"Machs" *He will also have to rewrite that. *I'd give him a clue
but apparently clues don't work for him

You couldn't hand anyone a clue if you had a pair of tongs. *But
Daddy was a PhD, and you use emoticons.

Harry K

Not only do you not have a clue,

As irony meters explode everywhere. *Or did they combust?

you can't even tell to whom you are
replying. *That post is a mish mash of replies to two different posts..

Sorry. *One of the posts didn't make it to misc.legal. *Deal with it.

BTW - insults are usually the sign of a poster who has lost the
debate.

What? *No emoticons to emphasize how clever you are? *I've gone back and
looked at my posts in this thread, and while I've made fun of your
seeming inability to advance an arguent (or even to keep to the topic),
I've not offered up any personal insults.

BTW - if you have to declare yourself the winner of the debate, you
usually aren't. *(And BTW, don't you just love these acronyms the kids
are all using?)

Thanks for playing anyhow, now why don't you go back to school and
learn the difference between explode and burn?

Well, why have you spent these posts claiming how clever you are instead
of simply demonstrating it? *Pray tell us the difference. *It doesn't
really matter for the point of the discussion -- see the quoted claim
above -- but why not do it anyway? *Maybe Dad can help with the
...

read more »- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

plonk the person who has nothing but insults to offer the
disucussion and refuses to defend his _incorrect_ claims.

Harry K