George wrote:

Yep, on record as saying that, absent the volatile organics which are the
source of the ignition, you have wet sawdust, which won't burn on its own
or
with a flame until the water is expelled. Fresh sawdust and fresh hay
outgas the same.

The wonderful thing about science is that there is a cause - effect,
reproducible outcome.

You find yourself approached to serve on many product liability juries?
Seems you're what the ambulance chasers would like.

George, comments like that make it clear that you can't stand to have anyone
disagree with you and when you can't convince someone with facts and
figures (and you're not going to with the kind of assertions you're making
because you're assuming that the existence of one mechanism of ignition
precludes the existence of others and further, you're arguing that in the
presence of unknowns one should take the dangerous path rather than then
safe one) you'd rather insult them than agree to disagree and get on with
your life.

If science knew everything then the scientists would be out of a job.
Remember that.

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 18:12:07 -0400, George george@least wrote:
As I said before, it is volatile organics produced by _GREEN_ hay or
manure,
or sawdust which ignite.

You seem to be equating my "fresh sawdust" with "green hay or manure"
now, which is most decidedly not what I had written.


http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/...s/hayfires.htm

Yes, I'm familiar with wet hay fires. Are you going on record as saying
damp sawdust cannot spontaneously combust? How sure are you of this?
Showing that hay combusts for reason (A), and showing that sawdust does
not have reason (A), does not mean sawdust does not spontaneously
combust, it just means it doesn't spontaneously combust _for that precise
reason_. Yes?



--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)