 |  |
| Boat Design Forums | Boat Design Directory | Boat Design Gallery | Boat Design Book Store | Thanks to Our Site Sponsors |
| ||||
|
#5071
03-06-2010, 09:56 PM
| |||
| |||
| Quote:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6228923n Quote:
Actually, they are not much slower, if at all, in operation. Large turboprops fly over 300 knots, with many like the Lockheed P-3 and its civilian counterpart capable of reaching 400 knots. The Russian 'Bear' bomber and its civilian counterpart can cruise at 500 knots. So clearly, the lack of sufficient speed is not the reason they are not widely used by the industry. The real reason is cost; each propeller costs as much as an entire engine! (some even cost MORE than an engine!) To make things worse, its continuing maintenance is also just as costly as the engine's maintenance. In the end, any fuel savings is eaten up by the extra cost of acquisition and maintenance, so there is no savings to be had. The big wind turbines are no less propellers than those on a large commercial turboprop aircraft. They are very expensive to buy and must be maintained to the same very high standard as a propeller on an aircraft. Smaller turboprops are economically viable, so there are a LOT of them in service. But propellers do not benefit from the 'economy of scale'. Wind turbines (which are after all, just propellers) suffer the same problem. In the end, we will look back on the foray into large wind turbine power as an expensive and ill-conceived diversion, with NO HOPE of economic viability. Jimbo |
|
#5072
03-06-2010, 10:20 PM
| |||
| |||
| Quote:
Jimbo |
|
#5073
03-06-2010, 10:54 PM
| ||||
| ||||
| ...what are you trying to tell us Jimbo, just go ahead mate and say it........
__________________ "I do not know, what I do not know!" |
|
#5074
03-06-2010, 11:01 PM
| ||||
| ||||
| the rate of change in co2 is literally off the charts  the rate of change in population is literally off the charts  the rate of change in temp is literally off the charts  the rate of change in methane is off the charts  looks like there are a lot of parameters where the rate of change is dramatically greater than in any other similar period in the past so if the rate of change is significantly higher than the norm and that rate of change is driven by human activity then how can it be natural variation as compared to times long before human influence kinda does not work to continue bleating "natural variation" when there is not one shred of evidence to back up the diatribe cheers B
__________________ I am skeptical of the deniers diatribe |
|
#5075
03-06-2010, 11:22 PM
| ||||
| ||||
| Dam I love that thing Jim still uses a fuel but its at least not producing co2 nice five to ten years eh might even be soon enough to make a difference oh on the natural variation thing the facts simply do not bear that out the rate of change is way off the charts in numerous categories co2 methane temp population all occurring much faster than at any other time in the last say 800,000 years
__________________ I am skeptical of the deniers diatribe |
|
#5076
03-06-2010, 11:24 PM
| ||||
| ||||
| I accidently posted this to the wrong thread oops Quote:
__________________ I am skeptical of the deniers diatribe |
|
#5077
03-06-2010, 11:55 PM
| |||
| |||
| Quote:
Just a few thread pages back, Guillermo posted graphed data of past temperature trends, which showed numerous warming and cooling events of similar rate and magnitude as 20th century warming, several much more recent than 800, 000 years ago. But, of course you have once again forgotten that. The movie "Memento" comes to mind again.  Jimbo |
|
#5078
03-06-2010, 11:59 PM
| |||
| |||
| WONDER Boy, You are once again posting graphs taken straight from MBH-98! I can't understand how you don't comprehend the demise of that paper! You cannot make a credible case for your own scientific objectivity if you keep posting from MBH-98 as if this were a credible source. Jimbo |
|
#5079
03-07-2010, 12:10 AM
| ||||
| ||||
| the effort of thousands of scientist have gone into that and innumerable papers all in support of the theory of Rapid Global Climate Change simple reality is that although Im sure that mistakes can be found on all sides of the coin the mas of data concerning this issue in overwhelmingly in support of the theory with 97% of scientists involved agreeing and with one of the largest % of confidence of any scientific theory in the history of scientific theories I notice you mention Guillermo's ( on vacation ) graphs from what 20 posts ago maybe you forgot my response to his post Quote:
did not show data past the turn of the last century and so could hardly be considered relevant in discussing today's issues with abrupt climate change and failed to contain the resolution to show the abrupt nature of today's changed had they presented up to date data so I suppose the real question is is avoiding or denying the data really the best that can be done to address the realities of our present situation and if that is going to be the standard tactic of the deniers then how are we to take there issues seriously if they are not willing to even take a look at the data and instead present 100 year out of date information in time scales insufficient to even address the major point of the problem B
__________________ I am skeptical of the deniers diatribe |
|
#5080
03-07-2010, 12:29 AM
| |||
| |||
| Just think of WONDER Boy as 'Lenny' in this clip from 'Memento'. It does not matter how many times he's told, shown and proven what's real, he cannot form new memories, so he just keeps going back to the same old 'truth' he thinks already he knows. It's only funny when you ignore how tragic it actually is  Jimbo |
|
#5081
03-07-2010, 12:31 AM
| |||
| |||
| Nuke Reactors and Cheese Hi Spearaddict, Actually, we ARE on the bleeding edge of nuclear reactor design. The reactors which we put in our nuclear submarines are second to none. I just spoke last Wed. evening with a man who designed the sensor controls that go into nuke reactors and they are so sensitive that, for example, a reactor thought to have only two years of fuel went for 7 years between overhauls. He did say that Three Mile Island and Chernobyl would never have happened had his company's controls been used. Secondly, have you ever noticed how thyroid cancer is epidemic around nuclear power plants........and there are no exceptions. For example, around Limerick, PA and also Harrisburg, PA, thyroid cancer has an ENORMOUS incidence. Now, as to hoytdo: Originally Posted by hoytedow View Post That was a cheesy response. What happened to Global Warming? All of a sudden you quit using the term. I had not planned to respond to this but his baiting me is irresistible. Again, both sides need to come forward with integrity and admit to what they do NOT know. So, now, if this response is "cheesey," Hoyt seems to have served up vintage adhominem whine.  Bye, Bye. |
|
#5082
03-07-2010, 01:05 AM
| |||
| |||
| WONDER B, There's only been ~1C of warming since the start of the 20th century; hardly an alarming trend. And we don't need graphs of proxy data to observe that decidedly non-alarming trend either since the wonderful invention of the thermometer. I find it absolutely hilarious that you worry over the resolution of the graphs Guillermo presented and then put enormous faith in the claimed resolution of works such as MBH-98, which pretend to be able to resolve .2C @ 1000 years. And that from a few tree rings. Jimbo |
|
#5083
03-07-2010, 04:30 AM
| |||
| |||
| Boston you are thinking a bit short term.... [IMG][/IMG]A longer time period for reference, showing natural climate variation has to be considered here. Firstly, yes the climate is warming, and it has done so for 12,000 years - fortunately for humans! But that's not even one full glacial cycle.Secondly, looking at the last 5my there are lots of glacial cycles, many at higher temperatures than where we are now. Thirdly, the last 65my is instructive in showing that the climate has been very much warmer in the past, and cycled. The PETM ( http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0426-petm.html ) is fascinating not just for the rapidity of temperature increase (and what it reached!) but also the subsequent delcine (perhaps over a few thousand years) back to the trend in that era. Not to mention that it was an important event for the age of mammals, ourselves included. There are clearly a lot of buffers in the global climate system that operate on scales and in ways that we can't adequately grasp at present. Something those in charge of the purse strings must not forget. Don't worry about the planet, natural climate variations will occur and be buffered, all by mechanisms that are not well understood. Sure, human population will be in trouble. Bostons population explosion graph says it all - think of 'locust plague' (rapid breeding, ravaged landscapes and when no food left, an inevitable and rapid population decline) But for the planet, the 'human plague' will be just a blip, and nothing we've done to date will leave a significant scar...But on human timescales, a lot of people have jumped on the wrong bandwagon. A couple of the critical issues that are not being well enough addressed are the consequences of global warming: 1. rising sea level (= large number of displaced people) and 2. disruption to food production. For a time a warmer planet might produce more food than it does now - there are some benefits of a greenhouse! But it has to get to those who need it, and at present we don't do a very good job of that. Its important: hungry people start revolutions and wars! And even now some nuclear States aren't members of the NNPT and some near-nuclear States (eg Iran) are being run by very scary people indeed at present. The displaced people issue will need international cooperation that Copenhagen recently demonstrated is beyond the capacity of our 'global leaders'. Many developed countries can't adeqautely deal with a few hundreds or in some cases a few thousands of 'boat people' or other 'illegal immigrants'. Just wait until the numbers we have to deal with are in the millions, and it won't be that long either. I'm all for people who want to try stop climate change - good luck. PS don't hold your breath waiting for success. BUT dont expect any taxpayer $$ to do it with - there are more worthy problems to address. And for those who want to quote '...since records have been kept' (ie about the last 150 years) to 'prove' their view and the need for urgent action, I simply say this: if a glacial cycle is one wavelength, its somewhere in the vicinity of 15,000 -20,000 years of climate observations you need at a mnimum. But you'd want a few wavelengths to have a statistically meaningful dataset wouldn't you? Imagine going onto the beach at low tide, watching the waves for 5 minutes and then going to sleep 'safely' above wave height ....only to drown a few hours later when the tide came in. I despair at the 'experts' who use just a few years data (including those who regard 'since records have been kept') - they're effectively on the beach for just a second or two, well below one wave (length) of relevant time and yet confidently predicting that they understand everything and just need (all of) our money to fix it. They can't grasp fullwave (lengths), multiple waves let alone something on a longer timeframe - the tides. I hope they drown soon! |
|
#5084
03-07-2010, 04:46 AM
| ||||
| ||||
| Watch the video trailer on the link below http://www.noteviljustwrong.com/store Please by the DVD, I get 10% of each copy, directly by the oil industry...
__________________ There's only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving, and that's your own self. Aldous Huxley |
|
#5085
03-07-2010, 07:57 AM
| ||||
| ||||
| for the hundredth time its the rate of change not just the amount of change that and the alterations in the atmospheric chemistry co2 is rising at unprecedented speeds and to unprecedented levels over the life span of human existence as is methane as well as population Temp is also rising faster than ever before and with no end in site think of it like driving a car towards a cliff that can only be seen in certain wave lengths science finds a way to observe the cliff but you dont believe it and some fool ceo begins a campaign to deny the science so that you keep buying his fuel for the car by the time you hit the cliff its to late and at some point your going to fast to stop anyway its the rate of change that is the concern and not just the amount although there are folks who will show good data for the tipping point being right around the corner and some who will say the change in albedo is already to great for the climate to return to normal any time soon rate of change guys climate science is all about rate of change and the alteration of atmospheric chemistry that is responsible for that rate of change takes a bow B
__________________ I am skeptical of the deniers diatribe |
 |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
| |
Similar Threads | ||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| How much will the C of G change? | Gene H | Diesel Engines | 6 | 03-02-2007 10:30 AM |
| Somebody Please help with impeller change! | SC Hartwell | Outboards | 2 | 01-14-2007 12:44 PM |
| Change My Skeg? | mcody2005 | Boat Design | 1 | 11-05-2006 11:45 PM |
| How about a change of pace? | Handtool | Fiberglass and Composite Boat Building | 11 | 09-14-2006 08:42 AM |
| Career Change | preaser | Education | 2 | 10-07-2004 10:29 AM |
Linear Mode
