I'm not ignoring you, per se, I just don't have a response to offer. Frankly, I have no idea what the hell you are talking about. I sense you are probably trying to be funny, but I'm not getting the joke and I'm not interested anyway.
The Etp Model Has Been Empirically Confirmed
- Thread starter Futilitist
- Start date
- Status
Swing and a miss. Please reread my post and see if you can find the phrase you missed the first time [edit: beyond that, those are really, really bad examples of "amateurs" - you are most unworthy of listing yourself among them.]. Also, it's a new rule, but it applies here too: copy-pasted replies are not acceptable. You need to make your own arguments/explanations.
You are being very misleading.
Let's review the conversation, shall we? I posted this:
Who Can Spot The Trend?
This is a graph of the oil price with a 365 day moving average.
Something has changed.
The Etp model explains what happened. And what to expect from here on.
Firmly anchored by the second law of thermodynamics, with a 96.5% accuracy, the Etp model is a hell of a lot better than the wild assed guesses and fantasies on display from other "defenders of science" that populate this fine forum:
"Predictions:
Oil prices will begin to creep-up over the next 6 months or so on their own as existing wells dry up and new ones DON'T come online (individual wells don't last long). Then a new equilibrium would be reached somewhere between today's and last year's prices. That may satisfy the Saudis, but I don't think so.
I predict that the Saudis will "crack the whip" in the second half of this year, reducing production, sending supplies way down and shooting prices way up. It will just be volatility (it won't be permanent), but we are due for our next recession, and that should be enough to make it happen."
~Russ_Watters, April 10, 2015.
At the time of this amazing prediction, Brent Crude cost 56.81 dollars a barrel. Today, 5 months later, Brent Crude sells for 46.50 dollars a barrel. Technically, there is still about a month left to go on this Nostradamus-like prediction, but so far the oil price has gone down, not up.
I don't hear any Saudi whips cracking yet, either! And nice hedge on the upcoming recession, BTW. Just for the record, I predicted a recession, too (for real reasons). If one does happen soon, I will still be *WAY* more right than you!
When you get back from your little hiatus, perhaps you could pull out your crystal ball and try again, Russ.
Write4U said:
What a stupid comment. There is no support for anything you just said! You can't possibly really believe anything this bizarre.
The reason your comment is so bizarre is because you are implying that the entire oil price history was catastrophically affected by a single small release from the strategic petroleum reserve. I have already explained how minor things like this fit into the thermodynamics used in the Etp model. So your report only seems (to you) to confirm your stupid comment. Your comment is still stupid. And your challenge is false.
First you bring up unrelated attempts by economists to do thermodynamics and now you bring up a trivial release from the strategic petroleum reserve. For someone with an open mind, you sure seem hell bent on proving the Etp model incorrect.
Predictable economics and predicting the price of oil are not the same thing. The methodology used in the Etp model does not make any economic predictions. It uses the second law of thermodynamics to derive a function for the rate of entropy production in the petroleum production system.
The model's output was checked against historical data for the 96.5% accuracy stat. (I have been inadvertently stating the years incorrectly. I should have given the years as 1960-2009. My bad.)
The model could have a 96.5% accuracy up until 2012, when the Etp model curve intersected the Etp maximum price curve. Since then, the model can only forecast the maximum possible oil price. That maximum price will continue to decline, approaching zero around the year 2021, less than 5.5 years from now.
---Futilitist
Last edited:
I said to exchemist:
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 (actually 2009) with an accuracy of 96.5%, making it the most accurate price forecasting tool ever devised....
What evidence do you have that my claim above is false?
This is pretty important, Russ. If you cannot provide a bunch of numbers for posts which sufficiently address my question, then you are now lying in your ridiculous ongoing attempt to dodge my question.
I will hound you for an answer to this.
---Futilitist
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 (actually 2009) with an accuracy of 96.5%, making it the most accurate price forecasting tool ever devised....
What evidence do you have that my claim above is false?
I cannot find where you ever explained this "a bunch of times" or even once. I doubt the readers can either. If you are too lazy to provide an answer, at least give me some post numbers. Thanks.
This is pretty important, Russ. If you cannot provide a bunch of numbers for posts which sufficiently address my question, then you are now lying in your ridiculous ongoing attempt to dodge my question.
I will hound you for an answer to this.
You are trying to move the goalposts with your arbitrary application of the meaning of copy-pasting in some new rules. You are not in charge. I never said I was worthy to be listed amoung the people in the article, so straw man. And I don't care if you don't like my post on important amateur contributions to science. It comes from nova.
---Futilitist
Last edited:
as i have said, all these types of algorithms fail. the minute the system receives many variables and delts in the same moment it will be inaccurate. run this algorithm on a trading system, i'll bet it will fail with the first month of being used, since it has not been yet. simply a couple of statistics that created a line. it's the exact same thing as a manufacturer making a coloring book. excpt that uses actual math.
second, show us the sheet. i want to see the inputs and outputs.
where's the track record.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
We could imagine a scenario where a college student augments his/her income with "specialized" financial trading in order to afford the tuition for his/her scientific field of choice.
But it is also said that a college degree is worth a million dollars more in lifetime income. Thus "sex for pay" is a stable and predictable commodity in the "futures" market.
Last edited:
See what I mean, folks? No sense of humor.
Sad.
And tick tock, Russ. I am still waiting for you to answer my last post and provide a bunch of post numbers showing that my valid question has been answered. I'll bet we don't see an answer from you before the end of this page. Then I will have to bring it up again on the next page. This is ridiculous. Put up or shut up. If you can't actually put up any valid arguments against the Etp model, I once again submit that the Etp model has been confirmed. Thank you.
---Futilitist
Last edited:
I have a difficult time believing you are that stupid. After all I have seen from you regarding your logical/scientific thought, I must admit that it is possible, but irregardless of that, you are largely able to construct complete sentences, which isn't likely to be possible from a drooling idiot.
[edit] Ok, just for laughs, why don't you try rereading the first page of this thread to see if you can find one of the problems with it. You replied to a lot of things on page one, but not that (that's a second hint...). Coincidence? Probably not...
Good luck.
If this is all a joke, it would be so relieving because the alternative is basically that you might actually be the drooling idiot you appear to be pretending to be.
I was trying to say that someone doesn't have to be educated in physics, or any other science, to see fallacies.
Hey Russ,
I said to exchemist:
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 (actually 2009) with an accuracy of 96.5%, making it the most accurate price forecasting tool ever devised....
What evidence do you have that my claim above is false?
You said:
No. You've had it explained to you a bunch of times and one more is not going to do anything but waste my time. However, you can at any point go back and respond to one of the many posts you have ignored/glossed over in this thread or others where it was explained what the issues are. But be aware also that I am no longer accepting copy-pasted responses. You claim proficiency in the workings of the ETP Model, so you should be explaining everything in your own words. I'll not be humoring your laziness anymore either.
I said:
I cannot find where you ever explained this "a bunch of times" or even once. I doubt the readers can either. If you are too lazy to provide an answer, at least give me some post numbers. Thanks.
This is pretty important, Russ. If you cannot provide a bunch of numbers for posts which sufficiently address my question, then you are now lying in your ridiculous ongoing attempt to dodge my question.
Now you say:
I just asked you a direct question about your lying to cover up your dodging and you are dodging the question. My head is spinning. You are a joke.
If you choose not to answer the question I won't really hound you. I don't actually care.
---Futilitist
I said to exchemist:
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 (actually 2009) with an accuracy of 96.5%, making it the most accurate price forecasting tool ever devised....
What evidence do you have that my claim above is false?
You said:
No. You've had it explained to you a bunch of times and one more is not going to do anything but waste my time. However, you can at any point go back and respond to one of the many posts you have ignored/glossed over in this thread or others where it was explained what the issues are. But be aware also that I am no longer accepting copy-pasted responses. You claim proficiency in the workings of the ETP Model, so you should be explaining everything in your own words. I'll not be humoring your laziness anymore either.
I said:
I cannot find where you ever explained this "a bunch of times" or even once. I doubt the readers can either. If you are too lazy to provide an answer, at least give me some post numbers. Thanks.
This is pretty important, Russ. If you cannot provide a bunch of numbers for posts which sufficiently address my question, then you are now lying in your ridiculous ongoing attempt to dodge my question.
Now you say:
Is that the best answer you could come up with?
I just asked you a direct question about your lying to cover up your dodging and you are dodging the question. My head is spinning. You are a joke.
If you choose not to answer the question I won't really hound you. I don't actually care.
---Futilitist
It's the best answer you deserve.
Does anyone have any serious question regarding the Etp model?
---Futilitist
---Futilitist
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
I think there are signs of psychosis now. We've now had paranoid accusations of collusion between Write4U and myself and now we are getting potted biographies of various random scientific figures. We may get nursery rhymes next. I'm going to leave Fute alone, I think, and focus on responding to interesting side lines, unless anyone other than Fute raises new points on this "model".
It would be fascinating, though, if someone is able to divine how it is proposed - ideally with an illustrative example - that a thermodynamically valid control volume for the Petroleum Production System can be defined, with all the flows of mass and energy and their associated bulk properties (densities, temperatures, pressures and so forth) measured or estimated. Because that is what is need for any entropy calculation to be attempted.
Nope. Thoroughly debunked. No more questions needed.
It's really tough to tell what the causes of his behavior are. That's probably part of it, but I hope for his sake he's just trolling.
I have one question (don't hurt as this is like the third time I asked) why isn't it published?
i do, but you continue to sidestep them for some odd reasons.Does anyone have any serious question regarding the Etp model?
---Futilitist
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I believe he said he was testing the model for critique and input.
No. That is incorrect. It would make no sense because no one here is actually qualified to critique the validity of the Etp model. I said I was using the Etp model to test the validity of this science forum.Write4U said:
Here you go exchemist. Enjoy.
"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
Values for $$E_{TP}$$ are derived from the solution of the Second Law statement, the Entropy Rate Balance Equation for Control Volumes:
$$\frac{dS_{CV}}{dt}
=\sum_j\frac{\dot{Q}_{j}}{T_{j}}
+\sum_i\dot{m}_{i}s_{i}
-\sum_e\dot{m}_{e}s_{e}
+\dot{\sigma}_{cv}$$
"Where $$\frac{dS_{CV}}{dt}$$ represents the time rate of change of entropy within the control volume. The terms $$\dot{m}_{i}s_{i}$$ and $$\dot{m}_{e}s_{e}$$ account, respectively, for rates of entropy transfer into and out of the control volume accompanying mass flow. The term $$\dot{Q}_{j}$$ represents the time rate of heat transfer at the location on the boundary where the instantaneous temperature is $$T_{j}$$. The ratio $$\frac{\dot{Q}_j}{T_j}$$ accounts for the accompanying rate of entropy transfer. The term $$\dot{\sigma}_{cv}$$ denotes the time rate of entropy production due to irreversibilities within the control volume."
~(Taken from Fundamentals of Engineering Thermodynamics by Moran and Shapiro)
Because there is only one temperature boundary (at the exit point of the reservoir) and no crude oil enters the reservoir from the environment, the equation reduces to:
$$\frac{dS_{CV}}{dt}=\frac{\dot{Q}_{j}}{T_{j}}-\dot{m}_{e}s_{e}+\dot{\sigma}_{cv}$$
giving: $$\frac{BTU}{sec*°R}$$
For this application, crude oil and water can be treated as incompressible substances. Their specific entropies are only affected by a temperature change.
For specific heats: $$c_{v}=c_{p}=c$$, and $$s_{2}-s_{1}=c*\ln{\frac{T_{2}}{T_{1}}}$$ The reservoir temperature is constant, therefore the entropy of the reservoir must decrease at the same rate that the entropy is transferred from the reservoir by mass flow. Thus, the heat leaving the reservoir is negative in sign and the equation becomes:
$$\frac{\dot{Q}_{j}}{T_{j}}=\dot{\sigma}_{cv}$$
giving: $$\frac{BTU}{sec*°R}$$
The rate of entropy production in the petroleum production system is equal to the rate of heat extracted from the reservoir divided by the reservoir temperature.
The rate of irreversibility production in the petroleum production system therefore becomes:
$$\dot{I_{cv}}=T_{O}*\dot\sigma_{cv}$$
giving: $$\frac{BTU}{sec}$$
Where $$T_{O}$$ equals the standard reference temperature of the environment, 537 °R (77° F).
Therefore:
$$E_{TP}=\int_{t1}^{t2}\dot{I_{cv}}dt$$
giving: $$BTU$$
Because the mass removed from the reservoir is limited to crude oil and water, the increase in $$E_{TP}$$ per billion barrels (Gb) of crude extracted as $$ds=c\frac{dT}{T}$$ is:
(Equation#7)
$$\frac{E_{TP/lb}}{Gb}
=\begin{bmatrix}\frac{(m_{c}*c_{c}
+m_{w}*c_{w})(T_{R}-T_{O})}{m_{c}} \end{bmatrix}/Gb$$
giving: BTU/lb/Gb
$$m_{c}$$ = mass of crude, lbs.
$$c_{c}$$ = specific heat of crude, BTU/lb °R
$$m_{w}$$ = mass of water, lbs.
$$c_{w}$$ = specific heat of water, BTU/lb °R
$$T_{R}$$ = reserve temperature, °R
$$T_{O}$$ = standard reference temperature of the environment, 537 °R
$$s_{i}$$ = specific entropy into the control volume
$$s_{e}$$ = specific entropy exiting the control volume
BTU/gal/Gb for 35.7° API crude = BTU/lb/Gb * 7.0479 lb/gal
Evaluation of $$E_{TP}$$ from Equation# 7 requires the determination of three variables: mass of the crude ($$m_{c}$$) mass of the water ($$m_{w}$$), and the temperature of the reservoir ($$T_{R}$$). These must be determined at time (t).
1) The mass of crude at time (t) is derived from the cumulative production function,
2) the mass of water is derived from the average % surface water cut (fw) of the reservoir,
3) temperature of the reserve is derived from the well depth. This assumes an earth temperature gradient of 1°F increase per 70 feet of depth.
---Futilitist
Last edited:
- Status