Re: Hoch

[Alan Anderson <aranders@netusa1.net>]

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'