Global Warmists back off on prediction

[Aliantha]

Yeah, they couldn't get it to work. They're still working on it though.

I don't know if it's a good idea or not, but I think the theory of changing the mechanics is probably a good one. Conventional engines need something to 'fire' to make them work (in general). Maybe that's the problem.

There's more info about it online if you care to do a search.

[tw]

Why Original SCT Failed

... read the original description of the SplitCycle engine. The performance claims made using the original design are not physically possible, and that is a fact now as it was a fact then. No speaking ability, no salesmanship, no force of will can change physical laws. I can certainly understand, in the beginning, people throwing money at this.

Was it sold using science or on some myth that throwing money at a problem can overcome fundamental thermodynamics? ....

I have to believe that, at the beginning, Rick Maynes believed in his idea, his invention. I also must believe that, at some point early on, he realized that he was good at raising money. And I truly believe that, at some point very early on, Mr. Maynes decided to spend a fraction of the $100,000,000 plus raised to keep up the window dressing, and keep the balance for himself and his associates. I believe that at some point, he made the decision that raising the capital and taking it was a hell of alot easier than taking the money, developing an engine, and throwing the dice. [/quote] That is also how hydrogen has been promoted as a fuel. As stated before, one most drive right in with belligerence at the irrefutable fact - IOW why everyone needs a science education to grasp reality:

Early on, it was pointed out that a low compression ratio and short stroke simply had no chance of succeeding, it was a physical impossibility.

What is immediately obvious in its design pictures? Massive surface area compared to combustion volume. This is also why the rotary engine was so difficult to operate efficiently - to do more with less. Maximizing volume per surface area even was an alegbra problem we had to solve in high school math class.

Nothing posted here is nay saying. The devil is in the details. Those details were immediately evident. Therefore the patent holder’s claims must address those obvious flaws. It does not. These realities are why innovation is so hard. These realities are why GM could be so innovative when separate divisions did the innovating rather than now - all innovation from two 'central bureaucracy' design centers. The split cycle engine was an admirable attempt to accomplish what the Sterling engine was also supposed to do. But to see what can and cannot work, one must first have a basic grasp of reality - such as Conservation of Energy. Burning seawater also will not work as a fuel. And yet some have also proposed that 'solution'. Again, it is why the world needs all students with basic science courses every year while in school. Otherwise people will even believe George Jr.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Meanwhile, elsewhere in the Solar System...

[Griff]

Darn cosmic rays!






They don't have clouds though do they? The martians that is... Still the sun is more active. Good article in Discovery this month on the Dane doing the ray research. Whether or not he's on to something, it shows that politics are not real good for science.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Meanwhile, elsewhere in the Solar System...

OK, that link is 4 years old. Seen any updates on the data?

Here is one

As early as 2001, articles appeared, based on photographic studies, indicating that the Martian poles were melting; estimates then were that if they continued doing so at their present rate, in 1000 years they would be gone. Exactly how long this apparent warming trend has been going on is currently unknown.
For the most part, the scientific community has collectively yawned and said “that’s nice”.

Then in 2006, it was revealed that Jupiter, too, may be undergoing a global warming trend. Photography from the Hubble Space Telescope indicates that a major storm, similar to the “Great Red Spot”, a storm that has been underway for at least 300 years, is gaining altitude indicating an increase in heat in that area. Scientists now believe that Jupiter is in the midst of some type of global event which is modifying temperatures by as much as ten degrees Fahrenheit on different parts of the planet.

and

It appears that Pluto, too, is experiencing a warming trend. Pluto is a strange bird. In fact, the scientific community in August 2006 stripped it of its “planetary” status; it is now known as a “dwarf planet”. Still, photographic evidence from 2002-2003 suggests that it is “significantly” warmer than it was in 1988, with atmospheric pressure twice what it was when last observed; this despite the fact that in 1989 it reached it’s closest approach to the sun and for the last 16 years it has been moving further away. Of course, “significantly” is a relative term when discussing a planet where the atmospheric temperature ranges from -274 degrees F to -391 degrees F, depending on the altitude.

and

But one thing is certain, of all the forces that may be involved in global warming on other bodies in our solar system, SUVs, coal-fired power plants, and gassy cows can definitely be ruled out as culprits. Unless you believe that by merely sending a space probe to observe, we have somehow triggered a man-made global warming event.

But there is one other body in the solar system that also appears to be experiencing “global warming”. And it is one that uniquely affects all other bodies as well. A new study of the Sun shows that solar radiation has increased by 0.05 percent each decade since the late 1970s. So what, you might ask. It is a tiny increase. It would take a hundred years or more for this to make a significant impact on Earth’s climate, and you just said it has only been since the late 1970s.

Not exactly. In actuality, the ability to make precise measurements of solar activity has only existed since satellite technology made it possible to gather the necessary observations. Such technology was not in place until the late ‘70s. In other words, the trend could go back further – we simply do not know, because we didn’t have the ability to directly measure it any further back.

Like everyone else, scientists are human too. And as is the case with most humans, it can be very difficult to change their minds on something once those minds have been made up. Of late, it has become fashionable to blame everything that happens with our climate (or anything else), on human activity. Thus, we hear from the liberals that scientists have established beyond a shadow of doubt that the Earth is experiencing global warming (despite dissent from some in the scientific community), that such warming is entirely caused by human activity (despite dissent from some in the scientific community), and that the principal culprit in such activity is the United States of America, who should, in the main, bear the responsibility for fixing the mess they created. Any who disagree, especially any who might be in the scientific community, are labeled as knuckle-dragging right-wing whackos, nut-jobs, and religious zealots with sub-room-temperature IQs.

It's worth reading the whole article. It's obviously bias but he makes some interesting points.