Quote from: profitis on January 04, 2015, 03:28:47 AM
a textbook discrepency isnot an idea

Are you saying you have no ideas about OU?   Here I was asserting that you have no CORRECT ideas about OU.

You're still in the same place.  Either you lied (again!) or you're likely wrong.

Let me know when you figure it out.

I'm saying a textbook discrepency is not an idea.it is a discrepency.they say such n such behaviour is expected from A when they also say such n such behaviour is banned from A.they say both 

Quote from: profitis on January 04, 2015, 11:51:50 PM
I'm saying a textbook discrepency is not an idea.

Are you saying you don't think there's a discrepancy or there is one? If you think there is one, then that's an idea.  

Let me know when you're not flapping your lips like an idiot....

THEY say compression of gas is expected spontaneously and THEY say decompression of gas is expected spontaneously in seperate steps of the same engine cycle mr sarkeizen don't make me angry now

Quote from: profitis on January 05, 2015, 12:19:32 AM
THEY say

These are all irrelevant from the expectation that a very obvious, easy to demonstrate unambiguously proof of OU is reasonably expected to be published in a journal in an unambiguous way.

Sorry you don't get it but you're hardly trying.