Apollo 11 Lunar landing - 40th aniversary

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Ray Fischer wrote:
Chris Malcolm wrote:
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Ray Fischer wrote:
Chris Malcolm wrote:
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Ray Fischer wrote:
Chris Malcolm wrote:
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Ray Fischer wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

And which is cleaner, coal, which is mostly carbon and whose combustion
product is mostly CO2, or oil, which contains a lot of hydrogen and whose
combustion product is mostly water?

The biggest combustion product from burning refined gasoline is CO2.
Water is way, way down the list.

It seems you don't know how to do the arithmetic, so let me try to

You're not smart enough to be condescending.

Not necessary to be particularly smart when arguing with someone who
knows so little :-)

And yet I still know more than do you.

So how come everything you've said so far about the chemistry of
hydrocarbon combustion has been wrong in very elementary ways?

It hasn't been. You're a dishonest idiot.

I've already explained why each of the few claims you've made so far
has been wrong. If you didn't understand then checking wikipedia for
"hydrocarbon combustion" "Avogadro's Law" and "atomic weight"
should help you out.

In a hydrocarbon molecule there is
always more than twice as much hydrogen as carbon.

Not by weight. One carbon atom weighs six times as much as a hydrogen
atom.

Oh dear. I had no idea your problem was so serious. You are so far

So you're just some stupid asshole.

And the person who claimed that a carbon atom weighs six times as
much as a hydrogen atom isn't stupid? :-)

It's a useful aproximation, moron.

Do you really think 6 is a useful approximation to 11.9, or are you
confusing atomic number with atomic weight? :-)

--
Chris Malcolm

Chris Malcolm wrote:

In a hydrocarbon molecule there is
always more than twice as much hydrogen as carbon.

Incorrect! In a SATURATED hydrocarbon that is true. Not
in UNsaturated ones. It is true that gasoline is saturated.

Coal is very very highly unsaturated.

Doug McDonald

"Chris Malcolm" wrote in message
...
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Ray Fischer wrote:
Chris Malcolm wrote:
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Ray Fischer wrote:
Chris Malcolm wrote:
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Ray Fischer
wrote:
Chris Malcolm wrote:
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Ray Fischer
wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

And which is cleaner, coal, which is mostly carbon and whose
combustion
product is mostly CO2, or oil, which contains a lot of hydrogen and
whose
combustion product is mostly water?

The biggest combustion product from burning refined gasoline is
CO2.
Water is way, way down the list.

It seems you don't know how to do the arithmetic, so let me try to

You're not smart enough to be condescending.

Not necessary to be particularly smart when arguing with someone who
knows so little :-)

And yet I still know more than do you.

So how come everything you've said so far about the chemistry of
hydrocarbon combustion has been wrong in very elementary ways?

It hasn't been. You're a dishonest idiot.

I've already explained why each of the few claims you've made so far
has been wrong. If you didn't understand then checking wikipedia for
"hydrocarbon combustion" "Avogadro's Law" and "atomic weight"
should help you out.

In a hydrocarbon molecule there is
always more than twice as much hydrogen as carbon.

Not by weight. One carbon atom weighs six times as much as a
hydrogen
atom.

Oh dear. I had no idea your problem was so serious. You are so far

So you're just some stupid asshole.

And the person who claimed that a carbon atom weighs six times as
much as a hydrogen atom isn't stupid? :-)

It's a useful aproximation, moron.

Do you really think 6 is a useful approximation to 11.9, or are you
confusing atomic number with atomic weight? :-)

--
Chris Malcolm

I suspect that he was talking about a hydrogen molecule, which contains two
H atoms, since it is a gas.....This would bring him a lot closer to a factor
of 6.

Chris Malcolm wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Chris Malcolm wrote:
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Ray Fischer wrote:
Chris Malcolm wrote:
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Ray Fischer wrote:
Chris Malcolm wrote:
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Ray Fischer wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

And which is cleaner, coal, which is mostly carbon and whose combustion
product is mostly CO2, or oil, which contains a lot of hydrogen and whose
combustion product is mostly water?

The biggest combustion product from burning refined gasoline is CO2.
Water is way, way down the list.

It seems you don't know how to do the arithmetic, so let me try to

You're not smart enough to be condescending.

Not necessary to be particularly smart when arguing with someone who
knows so little :-)

And yet I still know more than do you.

So how come everything you've said so far about the chemistry of
hydrocarbon combustion has been wrong in very elementary ways?

It hasn't been. You're a dishonest idiot.

I've already explained why each of the few claims you've made so far

You've demonstrated that you're a trolling asshole who doesn't even
know what you're arguing about.

--
Ray Fischer

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Bill Graham wrote:
"Chris Malcolm" wrote in message
...
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Ray Fischer wrote:
Chris Malcolm wrote:
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Ray Fischer wrote:
Chris Malcolm wrote:
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Ray Fischer
wrote:
Chris Malcolm wrote:
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Ray Fischer
wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:


In a hydrocarbon molecule there is
always more than twice as much hydrogen as carbon.

Not by weight. One carbon atom weighs six times as much as a
hydrogen
atom.

Oh dear. I had no idea your problem was so serious. You are so far

So you're just some stupid asshole.

And the person who claimed that a carbon atom weighs six times as
much as a hydrogen atom isn't stupid? :-)

It's a useful aproximation, moron.

Do you really think 6 is a useful approximation to 11.9, or are you
confusing atomic number with atomic weight? :-)

--
Chris Malcolm

I suspect that he was talking about a hydrogen molecule, which contains two
H atoms, since it is a gas.....This would bring him a lot closer to a factor
of 6.

That may have been what he was thinking of, but unfortunately it
wasn't what he was talking about. He was talking about the relative
amounts of carbon and hydrogen in a hydrocarbon with respect to their
effects on the relative amount of the combustion products. Hydrogen
gas doesn't feature in the combustion of a hydrocarbon :-)

--
Chris Malcolm

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Ray Fischer wrote:
Chris Malcolm wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Chris Malcolm wrote:
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Ray Fischer wrote:
Chris Malcolm wrote:

Not necessary to be particularly smart when arguing with someone who
knows so little :-)

And yet I still know more than do you.

So how come everything you've said so far about the chemistry of
hydrocarbon combustion has been wrong in very elementary ways?

It hasn't been. You're a dishonest idiot.

I've already explained why each of the few claims you've made so far

You've demonstrated that you're a trolling asshole who doesn't even
know what you're arguing about.

So you keep saying, Ray. Yet I post to newsgroups using my real name,
from which I've deliberately made it easy to find out where I live,
what I do, and so on. I do that because not only does it give me a
reputation to lose if I post nonsense, it gives me one to win if I
don't.

That's why I check my facts before posting, including checking the
veracity of another's claims before calling them a liar, their history
before calling them a troll, and so on.

I recommend you start checking your facts before posting your
opinions, Ray. It won't save you from being called a trolling asshole
by a fool, but it could stop you looking like one.

--
Chris Malcolm

Chris Malcolm wrote:
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Ray Fischer wrote:
Chris Malcolm wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Chris Malcolm wrote:
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Ray Fischer wrote:
Chris Malcolm wrote:

Not necessary to be particularly smart when arguing with someone who
knows so little :-)

And yet I still know more than do you.

So how come everything you've said so far about the chemistry of
hydrocarbon combustion has been wrong in very elementary ways?

It hasn't been. You're a dishonest idiot.

I've already explained why each of the few claims you've made so far

You've demonstrated that you're a trolling asshole who doesn't even
know what you're arguing about.

So you keep saying, Ray. Yet I post to newsgroups using my real name,

Don't care.

That's why I check my facts before posting,

Give yourself an OCD gold star.

--
Ray Fischer