I did a stint at teaching, the modern way.

True story this.

Class was finishing up in the Head Of Department's class on my first day as lecturer.

Head of Department had been lecturing about 2 and 4 stroke cycles, petrol and diesel etc.

"country bumpkin" student puts hand up and asks about 2 stroke diesels.

Head of Department smiles condescendingly, entire class laughs at "country bumpkin", Head of Department says something condescending and superior to "country bumpkin"

By this time I have forgotten that Head of Department is running late and into my class time, I've forgotten he is Head of Department, I have forgotten it is my first day as Lecturer, well, maybe not forgotten, but don't care.

I step forwards, and say to Head of Department in a loud and clear voice (class is now silent) "have you got a phone in your office?"

He looks puzzled... meh

I continue, "because you ought to ring the United States, Detroit Diesel specifically, and tell them there is no such thing as a 2 stroke diesel, which will be an interesting phone call, seeing as they have been making the things in VAST numbers for fifty fucking years."

Needless to say, my teaching career was short lived.

Dude, apprenticeships were tough in my day, they were MEANT to be so, and I had it easy, my father's parents had TO PAY HIS EMPLOYER for the first two years, basically for permission to come to work, no wages, because you're economically useless when you start out.

IF YOU GENUINELY want to learn, find some old retired guys in your field, or a closely related one (a 60 year old turner who learned his trade before CNC can still tell an aeronautics guys a shit load about materials and engineering) and start hanging out with him.

After a while you'll start to learn, nothing new under the sun, it has all been done before, usually better.

I dont get why you guys are discussing the possiblity of a hydrogen burn/explosion. This would only happen if the hydrogen is stored, and then only if it gets stored in large amounts. At the infinitessimal amounts that appears to be released during this process, it makes no sense to even try to store it beyond what makes for an efficient amount to bother igniting it. Storing hydrogen is impractical at best, and as hydrogen has the smallest possible atomic structure, it can pretty much escape any container, so noone stores hydrogen beyond what they need for immediate use anyway.
So obviously, the hydrogen needs to be used (almost) immediately, and very little if any amount stored. Presumably it would be burned to produce electricity for lights, or during winter for heating the highways, Both of which would produce safer, greener highways. Or during summer and daylight, being transmitted directly into the electric grid, similar to power from water/windmills, wavemachines or solar cells.

"Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle's lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist."

Source? Benjamin Franklin in his own autobiography.

Insofar as other founding fathers were "Christian," it was a sort of namby pamby, liberal, philosophical Christianity more concerned with helping your fellow man and being a good person than the crap religionists cry about today. The Christianity of the Founding Fathers would be barely recognizable as religion today.

These guys were all products of the Enlightenment, more influenced by people like Hume, Voltaire, Thomas Paine, Spinoza, Adam Smith, and Montesquieu. These were, almost without exception, deists or atheists. It is impossible to discuss the faith and philosophy of the founding fathers without understanding the prevailing attitudes of the time. You're interpreting history through a modern lens, assuming things had the same connotations then that they do now. "The general principles of Christianity" is a pretty broad statement that actually refers to a lot of very good things, just like "the general principles of Islam," but if someone said today that we should have a government centered around "the general principles of Christianity," they are going to be an evangelical shill advancing a very different cause, trying to use the founding fathers as cover for their bigotry.

Your QED is a little hasty, I think.