Honda Car Forum

Paul wrote:
<snip for clarity>

> To me, this says the additive they're talking about CONTAINS nitrogen, not
> that it IS nitrogen.

he's an astronomy teacher, not a chemistry teacher.

On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 10:53:16 -0500, Elliot Richmond
<xmrichmond@xaustin.xrr.xcom> wrote:

>On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 06:21:35 +0000, Edward W. Thompson
><thomeduk1@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Why do you think 'nitrogen' means nitrogen in a gaseous form?
>
>When one says "nitrogen." that's what one means. Nitrogen is an
>element. In gaseous form and standard temperature and pressure, it is
>a molecule formed of two nitrogen atoms joined by a double covalent
>bond. In this form it is relatively unreactive. The atmosphere is
>about 78% nitrogen.
>

Do you seriously think that Shell lintend to mislead by claiming they
have some 'magical formula' to fix gaseous nitrogen in gasolene?
Incidentally the information on nitrogen was not necessary :-) but
thanks anyway.


>>The
>>facts are you have no idea what you are talking about.
>
>I have some idea of what I am talking about.
>
>>Sure, Shell
>>does not reveal what nitrogen based additive is the basis of their
>>claim but that does not make their claim invalid.
>
>They did not say nitrogen based additive, they said "nitrogen
>enriched."
>
>Here is a tinyurl link to their page supposed "explaining" this new
>gasoline.
>
>http://tinyurl.com/6p5gn7
>
>I could not find any use of the words "nitrogen based additive" or
>"nitrogen compound" or "nitrogenated hydrocarbon."
>
>>Until you have some
>>facts to share, why not keep quiet?
>
>My guess was clearly speculation. Having facts and keeping quiet have
>never been standard operating procedure for Usenet. It certainly has
>not hindered anybody posting to this group in the several years I have
>been reading it, and occasionally contributing.
>
>However, I stand by my guess of nitrobenzene or something similar.
>Nitrobenzene is an effective solvent, it is relatively inexpensive, it
>mixes with water and gasoline, it would raise the octane number, and
>is not known to be carcinogenic.
>
>
>
>Elliot Richmond
>Itinerant astronomy teacher

On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 06:47:43 +0000, Edward W. Thompson
<thomeduk1@btopenworld.com> wrote:

>Do you seriously think that Shell lintend to mislead by claiming they
>have some 'magical formula' to fix gaseous nitrogen in gasolene?
>Incidentally the information on nitrogen was not necessary :-) but
>thanks anyway.

Yes, I think Shell, like all purveyors of products, is trying to
mislead us into thinking their product is somehow superior to all the
others. It may be. But I still maintain that they are simply adding
some inexpensive nitrogenous solvent and doing a spiffy routine with
smoke and mirrors to convince us it really makes a difference. Do
seriously think they are not?

By the way, not that anybody gives a rat's patootie, but I have also
taught high school chemistry.



Elliot Richmond
Itinerant astronomy teacher

Elliot Richmond wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 06:47:43 +0000, Edward W. Thompson
> <thomeduk1@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
>> Do you seriously think that Shell lintend to mislead by claiming they
>> have some 'magical formula' to fix gaseous nitrogen in gasolene?
>> Incidentally the information on nitrogen was not necessary :-) but
>> thanks anyway.
>
> Yes, I think Shell, like all purveyors of products, is trying to
> mislead us into thinking their product is somehow superior to all the
> others. It may be. But I still maintain that they are simply adding
> some inexpensive nitrogenous solvent and doing a spiffy routine with
> smoke and mirrors to convince us it really makes a difference. Do
> seriously think they are not?

i think there's medication available for people like you.


>
> By the way, not that anybody gives a rat's patootie, but I have also
> taught high school chemistry.

you're joking, right? the guy that doesn't know the difference between
compounded nitrogen and molecular nitrogen? /please/ say you're joking.

On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 19:29:53 -0700, jim beam wrote:

>> Yes, I think Shell, like all purveyors of products, is trying to
>> mislead us into thinking their product is somehow superior to all the
>> others. It may be. But I still maintain that they are simply adding
>> some inexpensive nitrogenous solvent and doing a spiffy routine with
>> smoke and mirrors to convince us it really makes a difference. Do
>> seriously think they are not?

> i think there's medication available for people like you.

It's a shame that there isn't any for people with your affliction.

There is no known cure for stupidity. You were born that way, and will
be that way your entire miserable life.


--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Ahhhhhhh!: http://brandybuck.site40.net/pics/relieve.jpg

Dan C wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 19:29:53 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>
>>> Yes, I think Shell, like all purveyors of products, is trying to
>>> mislead us into thinking their product is somehow superior to all the
>>> others. It may be. But I still maintain that they are simply adding
>>> some inexpensive nitrogenous solvent and doing a spiffy routine with
>>> smoke and mirrors to convince us it really makes a difference. Do
>>> seriously think they are not?
>
>> i think there's medication available for people like you.
>
> It's a shame that there isn't any for people with your affliction.
>
> There is no known cure for stupidity. You were born that way, and will
> be that way your entire miserable life.
>
>

what? the guy with the urination signature is lecturing on stupidity?
funny guy!

"Dan C" <youmustbejoking@lan.invalid> wrote:
> Very true. Just look at nearly any of the posts made by 'jim beam' to
> confirm this.

Well, for what it's worth, I seem to remember him too, from another
Honda group where he attacked with gusto anybody who did not pay
immediate homage to his sage advice. So be prepared for same.
pj

In message <WoqdnbaSC7s8wV3UnZ2dnUVZ_tfinZ2d@speakeasy.net> , jim beam
<retard-finger@bad.example.net> writes
>the guy that doesn't know the difference between compounded nitrogen
>and molecular nitrogen?
And the difference is?
--
Clive

On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 02:37:10 -0700, P J wrote:

> "Dan C" <youmustbejoking@lan.invalid> wrote:
>> Very true. Just look at nearly any of the posts made by 'jim beam' to
>> confirm this.
>
> Well, for what it's worth, I seem to remember him too, from another
> Honda group where he attacked with gusto anybody who did not pay
> immediate homage to his sage advice. So be prepared for same. pj

I guess you haven't been paying attention. He's already tried that, and
made himself look (even more) the fool for his efforts.

He's a clueless stooge who is best ignored.


--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Ahhhhhhh!: http://brandybuck.site40.net/pics/relieve.jpg

Clive wrote:
> In message <WoqdnbaSC7s8wV3UnZ2dnUVZ_tfinZ2d@speakeasy.net> , jim beam
> <retard-finger@bad.example.net> writes
>> the guy that doesn't know the difference between compounded nitrogen
>> and molecular nitrogen?
> And the difference is?

molecular is is just N2 - stuff you pump tires with. compounded is N +
anything else, like HNO3.