At 01:29 PM 6/1/2012, Chemical Engineer wrote:
Daniel,
Your 40% overall efficiency only includes rankine cycle and leaves out
Mirror losses
Air dispersion of mirror flux
Steam generator ambient radiation losses
10 hour only per day generation
Transmission losses
Overall number is much lower.
Sure, Daniel's analysis was brief and certainly incomplete. On the
other hand, what is obvious here is argument from conclusions. That
is, one has a set conclusion in mind, so arguments are picked one
after another to support the conclusion, and contrary arguments are
ignored. When an original argument is refuted, the fact is not noted,
and the proponent of the conclusion has in mind that "there are so
many arguments supporting my position, not all of them can be wrong."
The refuted argument is simply replaced with a new one, and the human
mind is powerfully able to invent these, it is a side-effect of our
necessary ability to discern meaning (i.e., to predict the future
with some success, to recognize patterns.)
If it were not so common, we'd have to consider this deranged.
Imagine this procedure applied to every dispute in one's life,
including arguments with family, spouses, employers, etc. "I'm right"
as a premise is fatal to real communication, fatal to relationships,
deep learning, flexibility, science, and the possibility of growth
beyond a very limited concept of self.
It's not that one is "wrong." It is that the stand is attached, and
attachment blinds.
There was an example of this recently, a writer here proposing that
"Darwinian Evolution," whatever that is, was preposterous, because
complex living structures must have been designed, they could not
have arisen by chance. I pointed out some flaws in this argument, and
the writer proceeded to assume that I was a "believer" in DE,
fanatically attached to it, and thus an enemy of the concept of
divine creation. When I pointed out that he couldn't see what was in
front of his face, but was inventing an imagined Abd, much less
discern the subtleties of how life arose, he considered the
discussion hopeless.
It probably was, but I'd treated his writing seriously enough to
address the main issue he'd raised, whereas another writer here
simply told him to go (eff) himself. I'm afraid that our creationist
friend was unable to understand simple human interactions, much less
the origin of life.
We are all subject to the error, though, when we forget the
distinction between what we actually know and what we imagine,
project, theorize, or believe, when we come to think that the ideas
we repeat to ourselves and others are "truth" and then treat anything
appearing to differ from them as "false" -- or worse.
