The Etp Model Has Been Empirically Confirmed

[Write4U]

Hi Write4U.


The Etp model does not model materials entropy. It models the rate of entropy production over the life cycle of the oil production process. The design of the boundary conditions must be correct for any thermodynamic model. And the Etp model uses three nested control volumes to do the job. And it works! You can tell it works because the output of the model matches the yearly average price of oil from 1960-2013 to an accuracy of 96.5%, making it the most accurate price forecasting tool ever made.

Exchemist has made no real attempt to explain exactly why the three nested control volumes used in the Etp model are supposedly invalid. He just keeps exclaiming repeatedly that it is nuts and totally daft, etc. It's just his opinion, with absolutely no support given. And he hasn't even tried to explain why the Etp model supposedly can't work, but yet it actually does.

One would think an open minded truth seeker like yourself would be more impressed with the real, tangible results of the Etp model than you would be with the mere words of exchemist.

What do you make of the fact that the Etp model works despite all the unsupported claims from exchemist that it can't possibly work? Do you still think exchemist is right? If so, please explain why? ---Futilitist

I have tried not to comment on the scientific relationship of ETP with production costs + variables and the price of a gallon of gas.

From a market perspective any high value commodity is NEVER priced lower than what buyers are prepared to pay. As demand for oil gradually decreases, the relative cost of extraction and processing of oil for remaining specialty applications goes up.

For a while there may be a bidding war between dwindling oil and renewable replacement fuels, but in the end oil will become a rare commodity, priced accordingly. I cannot think of a scientific scenario which would invalidate this market principle.

Your contention as I understand it, is that the price per gallon at the pump is predictable by your graph. I can go three blocks and find three different prices for a gallon of gas from local dealers.

 

[Futilitist]

Write4U,

One would think an open minded truth seeker like yourself would be more impressed with the real, tangible results of the Etp model than you would be with the mere words of exchemist.

What do you make of the fact that the Etp model works despite all the unsupported claims from exchemist that it can't possibly work? Do you still think exchemist is right? If so, please explain why?

The question is a fair one.


---Futilitist

 

[Russ_Watters]

This should be moved to the top of the physics forum since we have just established the validity of the Etp model.

Since you use the word "we" and you know that the rest of "we don't agree, clearly you are just goading. Clearly, you are aware that you are not entitled to judge the ETP model's validity and you are aware that the judgement it has received has been pretty universally negative.

And my outburst was completely justified.

Outbursts are never justified in science. Your increasing font size and color reeks of desperation and anger. You're losing your shit over your failure here.

The Etp model uses your beloved laws of thermodynamics to correctly forecast the yearly average oil price from 1960-2013 with an accuracy of 96.5%, making it the most accurate price forecasting tool ever devised.

That you keep making this false claim (with the added kicker this time) is probably a mixture of:
1. Trolling.
2. Childishness.
3. Stupidity.
4. Ignorance (no, that's not the same as stupidity).
5. Delusion (no, that's not the same as stupidity or ignorance).

At this point, there really isn't any reason for anyone to make any more substantive responses to this thread. You've gone completely and irreparably off the rails. Sure, you can keep increasing the font size until you can only fit one character per post, but that just makes you look crazier and crazier. Oops: that's 6. Meanwhile, the rest of us curiously await the Fed's decision, due tomorrow and try to predict how long it will take for this thread to get locked or cesspooled. I think we're close.

 

[Write4U]

I have tried not to comment on the scientific relationship of ETP with production costs + variables and the price of a gallon of gas.

From a market perspective any high value commodity is NEVER priced lower than what buyers are prepared to pay. As demand for oil gradually decreases, the relative cost of extraction and processing of oil for remaining specialty applications goes up.

For a while there may be a bidding war between dwindling oil and renewable replacement fuels, but in the end oil will become a rare commodity, priced accordingly. I cannot think of a scientific scenario which would invalidate this market principle.

Your contention as I understand it, is that the price per gallon at the pump is predictable by your graph. I can go three blocks and find three different prices for a gallon of gas from local dealers.

Write4U,

One would think an open minded truth seeker like yourself would be more impressed with the real, tangible results of the Etp model than you would be with the mere words of exchemist.

What do you make of the fact that the Etp model works despite all the unsupported claims from exchemist that it can't possibly work? Do you still think exchemist is right? If so, please explain why?

The question is a fair one. ---Futilitist

I agree, it is a fair question. Problem is that as exchemist suggests, I am not sure if the price graphs are a just a result of a fairly stable market with abundant oil supply and if these seemingly related trends will still hold when serious adjustments of our entire undustrial complex must be made to accommodate new energy sources.

I am sorry, Futilitist, I am afraid I have to weasel out of this one. Perhaps I am taking the term thermodynamics in too limited way, which excludes the human variable. Your model seems more expansive and very possibly might well account for the human variable on some higher level. I'm just not qualified to comment on other than what I posted in good faith.
But one thing I am sure of, .... "big change a'comin" ..., (maybe a good song title) .....

 

[Futilitist]

Since you use the word "we" and you know that the rest of "we don't agree, clearly you are just goading. Clearly, you are aware that you are not entitled to judge the ETP model's validity and you are aware that the judgement it has received has been pretty universally negative.

By 'we', I certainly did not intend to suggest in any way that the consensus on this forum was in favor of the Etp model. It clearly is not. But that does not prove a thing.

Order in the court

You are also not entitled to judge the validity of the Etp model. You are only entitled to present your best case against it. And I have put forth my best arguments in favor. The readers are the jury. They are the only ones entitled to make any final judgment.

I actually meant 'we' in the sense of making a broad declaration and an appeal to the jury. As in, "Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, 'we' have clearly established the validity of the Etp model".

I sense from your usual snotty tone, counselor, that you are not here to present any real, valid objections to the Etp model. When you left town, I naturally assumed you had rested your case, however weak it might be.

Is the Etp model valid? It is for the readers to decide.

You're losing your shit over your failure here.

I am certainly not losing this mock trial, but you are unfortunately correct that I have failed to get any of my valid questions answered. You simply took the 5th and refused to be cross examined. I think you are just incriminating yourself. I further submit that you have not actually presented a single valid objection to the Etp model. I seriously doubt your crude, substandard presentation has won the hearts and minds of the jury.

I'll bet you are not really working pro bono, either. And your many ethics violations should get you disbarred.

At this point, there really isn't any reason for anyone to make any more substantive responses to this thread.

So, I was right. It is obvious that you have absolutely no respect for the rules of evidence.

You clearly have rested your case. I declare a mistrial.

Is sciforums a kangaroo court?



---Futilitist

 

[exchemist]

Below is a scientific argument against the use of "entropy" (thermodynamics) in the calculation of depletion of durable goods.

You've done well to find this! Inspired by it, I've just done some digging of my own and I find there are one or two academics who try to get entropy into economics. There is an essay on it - and its limitations - here: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/basc/prospect...ples/econophysics_entropy_and_its_discontents

I must say I am with Young (referred to in the paper) in finding the argument for entropy in economics highly unpersuasive. It seems to me that "entropy", in the context of this paper is really used only in a hand-waving and unphysical way, to describe the irreversibility of industrial processes. I should have thought that the irreversibility of those would have been obvious. At any rate, I am unaware that anything in economics might assume the contrary. Certainly, no theory of economics assumes that mineral extraction - or oil extraction in particular - is reversible. We all know they are finite and that each seam or well eventually gets exhausted, so you have to find new ones, of which there must, eventually, be a finite number. Dragging in the concept of entropy adds zero to our understanding of that already obvious fact, it seems to me. And I certainly see no attempt in this paper to relate entropy in its true sense, in physics, i.e. dS =dQ/T, or S = k lnW, to any of the somewhat indeterminate concepts being discussed (purely qualitatively) in it.

But economics is a funny discipline. The basics of supply and demand and price and so forth are well understood (as you and I know from our commercial careers), but so much macro-economic theory seems to be a total failure. These academics build castles in the air but cannot agree on how to forecast anything - just look at the current arguments about monetary and fiscal policy on both sides of the Atlantic. So now some of them are casting around for pseudo-physics, it seems, for the next castle. One of my brothers has a saying (pace Clausewitz) that, "Economics is merely the continuation of politics by other means". I think there may be something in that.

But maybe this "econophysics" is where this madman/charlatan Hills gets his ideas from: a sort of force-fitting exercise, to co-opt physics into supporting an essentially political position.

 

[Russ_Watters]

By 'we', I certainly did not intend to suggest in any way that the consensus on this forum was in favor of the Etp model. It clearly is not. But that does not prove a thing.

It "proves" one very important thing: real engineers/scientists think that the idea is unmitigated garbage.

You are also not entitled to judge the validity of the Etp model.

False. Again, sorry science doesn't fit your belief system, but you aren't entitled to change the way it works either.

And I have put forth my best arguments in favor.

Lol, clearly - and what you have accomplished is to convince real engineers/scientists the idea is garbage. Good job!

The readers are the jury. They are the only ones entitled to make any final judgment.

You mean lurkers? Because the scientists/engineers who have judged the idea are "readers" too. Anyway, you are apparently assuming positive judgement from people who haven't commented. That's a nice, safe delusion; by definition one that can never be confirmed or falsified.

I sense from your usual snotty tone, counselor, that you are not here to present any real, valid objections to the Etp model.

Yeah, the prosecution rests as the defense has finished presenting its case. If you ever post anything new and of value, I reserve the right to comment on it, but I'm not expecting anything else from you but larger, more colorful fonts. You might try blinking fonts, if that's possible. It won't convince anyone of anything, but if you induce seizures at least people won't be able to make fun of you as much anymore.

I'll bet you are not really working pro bono, either.

Ah yes, all objectors are definitely part of the conspiracy. What an unfortunate coincidence for you that you stumbled into a place where everyone happened, by ridiculously long odds, to be on the take from oil companies!

Is sciforums a kangaroo court?

Yes. As you can see, there is essentially zero moderation here. So you've come to the right place. Any serious science forum would have banned you by now.

 

[Write4U]

I thank the mods for their flexible enforcement of presentation and general duscussion of an apparent unusual phenomenon.

It's why I like it here. Thinking a little out of the box is a good thing, IMHO, but the actual future maths will eventually prove the prediction (correlation) right or wrong. Perhaps another five year of data should give us the tools to refine the proposition, now we know what to look for and the end is in sight..

 

[krash661]

And it works!

except there's no track record that can show it works.
shrugs.

You can tell it works because the output of the model matches the yearly average price

ahh yes, yes.. finally it's admitted that this massively important algorithm line is only a moving average. these types of algorithms always fail, along with moving averages lagging.

matches the yearly average price of oil from 1960-2013 to an accuracy of 96.5%, making it the most accurate price forecasting tool ever made.

except previous data that did not need such a line was already shown without your line. anything you have posted only consist of the past, simply words without a track record.
it's simple to manipulate past data to match the so-called accuracy. i can do the same take previous data and draw a line on paper and say ' see it's accurate and works' but yet no track record to show.

again, a line on a chart is not accuracy, WHERE'S THE TRACK RECORD, which should have been done.

Exchemist has made no real attempt to explain exactly why the three nested control volumes used in the Etp model are supposedly invalid. [...] And he hasn't even tried to explain why the Etp model supposedly can't work,

except i did in which you conveniently sidestepped and continue to do so, for some odd reason.
shrugs.

but yet it actually does. [...] with the real, tangible results [...] What do you make of the fact that the Etp model works

except there's nothing that shows it does, simply a line drawn on a piece of paper, with a eureka remark. it's actually pathetic.
shrugs.

 

[krash661]

By 'we', I certainly did not intend to suggest in any way that the consensus on this forum was in favor of the Etp model. It clearly is not. But that does not prove a thing.

Order in the court

You are also not entitled to judge the validity of the Etp model. You are only entitled to present your best case against it. And I have put forth my best arguments in favor. The readers are the jury. They are the only ones entitled to make any final judgment.

I actually meant 'we' in the sense of making a broad declaration and an appeal to the jury. As in, "Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, 'we' have clearly established the validity of the Etp model".

I sense from your usual snotty tone, counselor, that you are not here to present any real, valid objections to the Etp model. When you left town, I naturally assumed you had rested your case, however weak it might be.

Is the Etp model valid? It is for the readers to decide.


I am certainly not losing this mock trial, but you are unfortunately correct that I have failed to get any of my valid questions answered. You simply took the 5th and refused to be cross examined. I think you are just incriminating yourself. I further submit that you have not actually presented a single valid objection to the Etp model. I seriously doubt your crude, substandard presentation has won the hearts and minds of the jury.

I'll bet you are not really working pro bono, either. And your many ethics violations should get you disbarred.


So, I was right. It is obvious that you have absolutely no respect for the rules of evidence.

You clearly have rested your case. I declare a mistrial.

Is sciforums a kangaroo court?



---Futilitist

here's another awesome question,
why is this model not even talked about on wall street ?

 

[Russ_Watters]

I thank the mods for their flexible enforcement of presentation and general duscussion of an apparent unusual phenomenon.

It's why I like it here. Thinking a little out of the box is a good thing, IMHO....

No offense, but while that's a common laymans' view to get them a seat at the table, it is very, very wrong. Most people who use the term are laypeople who don't know where the box even is, much less what is inside it. Nor are they aware that odds are they've placed themselves in a different box. The reality is that there is no shortcut to innovation: the only way to properly "think outside the box" is to study the box and it's contents formally and in depth, for years. Only then is it possible to understand how the walls of the box work and what is required to penetrate them.

The proof is in the pudding: in modern times, laypeople have contributed essentially nothing to science and very little to science related disciplines beyond simple/minor inventions.

As such, while lax moderation is popular with laypeople, it does them a disservice.

 

[krash661]

there's a schizophrenic on another science site whom hypocritically post this little comment,thanks to the Internet, now regular people think they know more than scientists

EDIT-
I APOLOGIZE, WRONG TOPIC.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

No offense, but while that's a common laymans' view to get them a seat at the table, it is very, very wrong. Most people who use the term are laypeople who don't know where the box even is, much less what is inside it. Nor are they aware that odds are they've placed themselves in a different box. The reality is that there is no shortcut to innovation: the only way to properly "think outside the box" is to study the box and it's contents formally and in depth, for years. Only then is it possible to understand how the walls of the box work and what is required to penetrate them.

The proof is in the pudding: in modern times, laypeople have contributed essentially nothing to science and very little to science related disciplines beyond simple/minor inventions.

As such, while lax moderation is popular with laypeople, it does them a disservice.

You mean the laws of thermodynamics don't include prostitution? Maybe the uneducated deserve a little slack.

 

[exchemist]

No offense, but while that's a common laymans' view to get them a seat at the table, it is very, very wrong. Most people who use the term are laypeople who don't know where the box even is, much less what is inside it. Nor are they aware that odds are they've placed themselves in a different box. The reality is that there is no shortcut to innovation: the only way to properly "think outside the box" is to study the box and it's contents formally and in depth, for years. Only then is it possible to understand how the walls of the box work and what is required to penetrate them.

The proof is in the pudding: in modern times, laypeople have contributed essentially nothing to science and very little to science related disciplines beyond simple/minor inventions.

As such, while lax moderation is popular with laypeople, it does them a disservice.

Yes, but on the other hand I think it is true that most of the interesting discussions arise on forums arise from what can in some ways be seen as naive questions from people without a science background in the topic of discussion. Sometimes the naive question forces me to think of something in a new way and to find an explanation or search the web for things I did not previously know. So long as everyone remains a responsive debater, there isn't a problem usually. Now that we've exhausted the abilities - if any- of Fute to explain his pet theory or deal with the numerous objections to it , we have had some quite interesting side discussions.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Yes, but on the other hand I think it is true that most of the interesting discussions arise on forums arise from what can in some ways be seen as naive questions from people without a science background in the topic of discussion. Sometimes the naive question forces me to think of something in a new way and to find an explanation or search the web for things I did not previously know. So long as everyone remains a responsive debater, there isn't a problem usually. Now that we've exhausted the abilities - if any- of Fute to explain his pet theory or deal with the numerous objections to it , we have had some quite interesting side discussions.

We're not that far apart here. The primary issue with a guy like Futilitist isn't his ignorance, it is his attitude. Specifically his total unwillingness to learn (and willingness to say anything to support his religion). Mr Garrison had it right: "there are no stupid questions, just stupid people". It's what you do with the answer that makes all the difference.

 

[exchemist]

We're not that far apart here. The primary issue with a guy like Futilitist isn't his ignorance, it is his attitude. Specifically his total unwillingness to learn (and willingness to say anything to support his religion). Mr Garrison had it right: "there are no stupid questions, just stupid people". It's what you do with the answer that makes all the difference.

Yes I'm afraid the problem is that he has espoused a theory that fits his (somewhat bizarre) worldview, without being able to understand either it or the objections to it. That quote of the partial differential equation proved it.

But I've enjoyed some of the other stuff - and Write4U's stuff on "econophysics" is a (rather ghastly) eye-opener into the dodgy way that some economists try to stay hip and trendy.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

I may be ignored, but that doesn't make me wrong.

Ignorant, uneducated people in thermodynamics doesn't mean they can't spot something ridiculous.

:EDIT:

Oh, BTW I'm not actually a prostitute.

 

[Futilitist]

You've done well to find this! Inspired by it, I've just done some digging of my own and I find there are one or two academics who try to get entropy into economics. There is an essay on it - and its limitations - here: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/basc/prospect...ples/econophysics_entropy_and_its_discontents

I must say I am with Young (referred to in the paper) in finding the argument for entropy in economics highly unpersuasive. It seems to me that "entropy", in the context of this paper is really used only in a hand-waving and unphysical way, to describe the irreversibility of industrial processes. I should have thought that the irreversibility of those would have been obvious. At any rate, I am unaware that anything in economics might assume the contrary. Certainly, no theory of economics assumes that mineral extraction - or oil extraction in particular - is reversible. We all know they are finite and that each seam or well eventually gets exhausted, so you have to find new ones, of which there must, eventually, be a finite number. Dragging in the concept of entropy adds zero to our understanding of that already obvious fact, it seems to me. And I certainly see no attempt in this paper to relate entropy in its true sense, in physics, i.e. dS =dQ/T, or S = k lnW, to any of the somewhat indeterminate concepts being discussed (purely qualitatively) in it.

But economics is a funny discipline. The basics of supply and demand and price and so forth are well understood (as you and I know from our commercial careers), but so much macro-economic theory seems to be a total failure. These academics build castles in the air but cannot agree on how to forecast anything - just look at the current arguments about monetary and fiscal policy on both sides of the Atlantic. So now some of them are casting around for pseudo-physics, it seems, for the next castle. One of my brothers has a saying (pace Clausewitz) that, "Economics is merely the continuation of politics by other means". I think there may be something in that.

But maybe this "econophysics" is where this madman/charlatan Hills gets his ideas from: a sort of force-fitting exercise, to co-opt physics into supporting an essentially political position.

Well that is interesting. And completely irrelevant. The Etp model is not econophysics. It is just simple physics. You can't come up with a decent argument against the Etp model, so you argue against something else instead. You and Write4U have constructed a straw man. Nice try.

Exchemist, you are now arguing with a straw man but you have still not bothered to answer my direct defense against your argument. I have asked you this question many multiple times. You have repeatedly chosen not to answer, instead focusing on my graphic design sense. It is obvious that you have no legitimate answer, but I will repeat my comment here with no giant bolds or color cues to get your attention. Please take some time to answer it. Thanks.

If you choose again to ignore my valid counter arguments, then you have clearly lost the debate.

Thanks for summarizing your arguments:

1) the misguided attempt to apply an entropy calculation to a thermodynamic "system" that is not finite.

I don't think you understand how the Etp model is designed. It uses three nested control volumes.

"Crude oil is used primarily as an energy source; its other uses have only minor commercial value. To be an energy source it must therefore be capable of delivering sufficient energy to support its own production process (extraction, processing and distribution); otherwise it would become an energy sink, as opposed to a source. The Total Production Energy ($$E_{TP}$$) must therefore be equal to, or less than EG, its specific exergy. To determine values for $$E_{TP}$$ the total crude oil production system is analyzed by defining it as three nested Control Volumes within the environment. The three Control Volumes (where a control volume differs from a closed system because it allows energy and mass to pass through it's boundaries) are the reservoir, the well head, and the Petroleum Production System (PPS). The PPS is where the energy that comes from the well head is converted into the work required to extract the oil. The PPS is an area which is distributed within, and throughout the environment. It is where the goods and services needed for the production process originate. This boundary make-up allows other energy, and mass transfers to be considered as exchanges, such as natural gas used in refining, electricity used in well pumping, or water used for reservoir injection."
~BW Hill

You must now explain specifically why the three nested control volumes used in the Etp model are not valid.

And, while you are at it, please explain why a model that you keep saying couldn't possibly work keeps working, nonetheless. The Etp model uses your beloved laws of thermodynamics to correctly forecast the yearly average oil price from 1960-2013 with an accuracy of 96.5%, making it the most accurate price forecasting tool ever devised. The model is logical and well designed. It should fill your heart with scientific pride! You are just denying reality and expecting people to take your word.

Why should we trust you, while not trusting our own eyes and common sense?



---Futilitist

 

[krash661]

You can't come up with a decent argument against the Etp model, [...] Nice try.

you're conveniently sidestepping my questions that will show exactly "a decent argument against " and continue to do so, for some odd reason.
why is this?

 

[Futilitist]

you're conveniently sidestepping my questions that will show exactly "a decent argument against " and continue to do so, for some odd reason.
why is this?

Your stupid posts are basically gibberish. If you have a serious, valid objection, I will answer it.



---Futilitist