Re: [Phys-l] Keen Grasp of the Obvious - Is it Controversial?

[Brian Whatcott <betwys1@sbcglobal.net>]

John Denker wrote:
> On 03/11/2009 08:34 AM, Robert Carlson wrote:
>   
> > So, can we agree that coal and oil are biofuels?
> >     
>
> *) A titmouse is not a mouse.
> *) Chocolate turtles are not made from turtles.
> *) Milk of Magnesia is not made from milk.
> *) The Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire.
> *) Coal and petroleum are not biofuels.
> *) You can look up the meaning of words in a dictionary.
> *) Repeatedly misdefining well-known terms and bringing up irrelevant
>  distractions is not a good way to win an argument.
> *) Elvis is dead.
>
>
>         http://www.av8n.com/physics/weird-terminology.htm
>   
It is far too easy to counter these reasonable assertions of John's 
about misleading names  by noting that a fossil fuel as defined by OCD 
for example, explicitly excludes nuclear fuels:  John's assertions with 
BC's support about the etymology of "fossil" notwithstanding.

I take a  moderate stance on defining biofuel. As currently used, the 
term has associations with wood, composted methane etc., as a fuel of 
RECENT biogenic creation.

So while it is reasonable in my view to categorize coal,  oil, town gas 
etc., as biogenic fuels   it is not usual to call them biofuels.

Brian W