tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Feb 14 16:55:11 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Hoch
ja' SuStel:
>Hmm . . . I don't think anyone would agree with {nIn naQ}, would they? Is
>this something to do with {nIn}'s non-quantifiedness, or with {naQ}'s
>meaning?
I understand {nIn naQ} quite readily. It's a complete fuel (like hydrazine
or butane) as opposed to an incomplete fuel (like hydrogen peroxide). It
is perfectly usable as is without any extra substances required except an
oxidizer. {nIn naQbe'} needs another component in order to be useful, as
in the catalytic decomposition of peroxide by an organic salt for its use
as a monopropellant. There are many examples of chemical substances that
in isolation are thermodynamically stable, but when combined become powerful
explosives.
In some states, pure gasoline is a {nIn naQbe'}, as there are regulations
for additives which must be included before it can be sold as a motor fuel.
-- ghunchu'wI'