http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html
World + Chuck Norris factor means it is not a simple and predictable closed system.
The Etp Model Has Been Empirically Confirmed
- Thread starter Futilitist
- Start date
- Status
World + Chuck Norris factor means it is not a simple and predictable closed system.
If that is your point, just say so. The Chuck Norris thing is trolling and I REPORTED IT.
---Futilitist
It's called: 'Listen to me now and understand me later'. That is, if you can...
This thread is just a regurgitation of a locked thread you know, and it should be locked already. Plus, why should I waste my time trying to explain things when you don't deserve it?
1) This is a total cop out
2) It is rude
It is a cop out because you need to explain your arguments, or they are meaningless. It is totally rude because I am bothering to answer all of your stupid arguments. Here is the answer to your lame closed system argument:
http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical_Chemistry/Thermodynamics/A_System_And_Its_Surroundings
A System and Its Surroundings
In thermodynamics, it is imperative to define a system and its surroundings because that concept becomes the basis for many types of descriptions and calculations.
Introduction
A primary goal of the study of thermochemistry is to determine the quantity of heat exchanged between a system and its surroundings. The system is the part of the universe being studied, while the surroundings are the rest of the universe that interacts with the system. A system and its surroundings can be as large as the rain forests in South America or as small as the contents of a beaker in a chemistry laboratory. The type of system one is dealing with can have very important implications in chemistry because the type of system dictates certain conditions and laws of thermodynamics associated with that system.
Open System
An open system is a system that freely exchanges energy and matter with its surroundings. For instance, when you are boiling soup in an open saucepan on a stove, energy and matter are being transferred to the surroundings through steam. The saucepan is an open system because it allows for the transfer of matter (for example adding spices in the saucepan) and for the transfer of energy (for example heating the saucepan and allowing steam to leave the saucepan).
Let us examine how matter and energy are exchanged in an open system. Matter can be exchanged rather easily: by adding matter (i.e spices) or removing matter (i.e tasting what is being cooked). Energy exchange is a little bit more complicated than matter exchange. There are a couple of ways energy can be exchanged: through heat and through work (a more in-depth discussion of heat and work has been included below). Energy induced through heat can be demonstrated by bringing the system close to an object that dissipates heat (i.e. Bunsen burner, stove, etc.). By doing so, one is able to change the temperature of the system and therefore, induce energy through heat. Another way to increase the energy is through work. An example of inducing work is by taking a stirrer and then mixing the coffee in the cup with the stirrer. By mixing coffee, work is done as the coffee is being moved against a force.
Note: the blue diagram depicting the transfer of energy and matter is showing how energy and matter can enter the system AND leave the system. Do not be fooled by the one way arrows.
The Etp model uses the entropy rate balance equation for control volumes. That is an equation for open systems.
"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.
-------------------------------
What exactly do you find wrong with the methodology, above, used to develop the Etp function?
---Futilitist
Wow, I clearly see how a boiling pot on a stove models the entire world economy!
I'm going to bed now.
I'm going to bed now.
So are you basically saying that the laws of thermodynamics are only good for figuring out how water boils on a stove? Everything else is just too complex? That is ridiculous.
Besides, the Etp model does not attempt to model the entire world economy, just the rate of entropy change in the oil production system. So, straw man.
I posted the methodology used to create the Etp model. You don't bother to comment on that.
You have clearly lost on this point. And you have shown that you are obviously not qualified to comment on thermodynamics. The open vs closed system argument is not a valid argument in the case of the Etp model.
Got anything else, troll?
Good.
---Futilitist
Last edited:
"Nothing in life is certain except death, taxes and the second law of thermodynamics. All three are processes in which useful or accessible forms of some quantity, such as energy or money, are transformed into useless, inaccessible forms of the same quantity..."
~Seth Lloyd
The world economy is a thermodynamic system. The second law of thermodynamics mandates that the oil production process, which provides most of the energy for the world economy, must experience entropy over time. Money is what we use to buy energy. The Etp model shows how all of these things are related.
In a larger sense, civilization itself is a thermodynamic process. All thermodynamic processes eventually run down. That shouldn't come as a shock to anyone, but it still does.
I have shown throughout this thread that that the Etp model is, in fact, valid. People bring up all sorts of arguments against it, but most of these arguments are not valid. In fact, I have answered all of the arguments against the Etp model, even the invalid ones. Whenever I answer one of these false claims with valid counter arguments, these counter arguments go unanswered. Then, a little later, the false claim is just reasserted, requiring that I re-answer it or allow a false impression to be created. You guys are all cheating. That is why we are up to 49 pages.
Let's resolve this once and for all. Please list the best serious arguments you guys can think of against the Etp model. Number them for clarity. I will answer them all and prove, once again, that the Etp model is valid.
---Futilitist
~Seth Lloyd
The world economy is a thermodynamic system. The second law of thermodynamics mandates that the oil production process, which provides most of the energy for the world economy, must experience entropy over time. Money is what we use to buy energy. The Etp model shows how all of these things are related.
In a larger sense, civilization itself is a thermodynamic process. All thermodynamic processes eventually run down. That shouldn't come as a shock to anyone, but it still does.
I have shown throughout this thread that that the Etp model is, in fact, valid. People bring up all sorts of arguments against it, but most of these arguments are not valid. In fact, I have answered all of the arguments against the Etp model, even the invalid ones. Whenever I answer one of these false claims with valid counter arguments, these counter arguments go unanswered. Then, a little later, the false claim is just reasserted, requiring that I re-answer it or allow a false impression to be created. You guys are all cheating. That is why we are up to 49 pages.
Let's resolve this once and for all. Please list the best serious arguments you guys can think of against the Etp model. Number them for clarity. I will answer them all and prove, once again, that the Etp model is valid.
---Futilitist
Last edited:
You say this:
In your next post you say this:
It's pretty iffy. Do you even know the things you say at this point?
1) Chuck Norris.
In your next post you say this:
It's pretty iffy. Do you even know the things you say at this point?
1) Chuck Norris.
Last edited:
Yes, I did say that. I meant it too.Futilitist said:
Futilitist said:
Your statement is utterly meaningless. Do you even realize that?
Iffy? Like how? In what way? Which part?
You need to clarify your position. You said my statement was "iffy". Here are the four sentences from my statement:
1) The world economy is a thermodynamic system.
Agree or disagree?
2) The second law of thermodynamics mandates that the oil production process, which provides most of the energy for the world economy, must experience entropy over time.
Agree or disagree?
3) Money is what we use to buy energy.
Agree or disagree?
4) The Etp model shows how all of these things are related.
Agree or disagree?
Please answer all four so that I may know what the hell your position actually is. I mean, unless it's a secret or something. Thank you.
I already answered this one. See this post:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/th...rically-confirmed.152487/page-49#post-3331397
As I explained, it is not a valid argument because, according to you, the Chuck Norris effect only applies to closed systems. As you explained:
The Etp model is an open system model. So, you are wrong again, since I already answered this one but you are just ignored my answer and repeated your same argument anyway. Please stop doing this. It is just more deception. You are faking an argument.
I have shown throughout this thread that that the Etp model is, in fact, valid. People bring up all sorts of arguments against it, but most of these arguments are not valid. In fact, I have answered all of the arguments against the Etp model, even the invalid ones. Whenever I answer one of these false claims with valid counter arguments, these counter arguments go unanswered. Then, a little later, the false claim is just reasserted (as just happened again), requiring that I re-answer it or allow a false impression to be created happened. You guys are all cheating. That is why we are up to 49 pages.
What else you got?
---Futilitist
Last edited:
Wow. Tag team wrestling again. Why are you clarifying Beer w/Straw's non-argument? You guys are the Borg.
Your answers are not actually serious are they? The only one you got right was #3. So, the only one you got right was the economics question! You totally failed thermodynamics. How come all you "scientists" actually only went to business school?
Dude, all processes in the universe are subject to the second law of thermodynamics. Your argument (?) is completely invalid. If you really don't understand this, you'll just have to take my word for it. Besides, I know you really do understand this basic physics concept, so why are you doing this?
I asked for a serious argument. All I get is more bullshit.
I have shown convincingly throughout this thread that that the Etp model is, in fact, valid. People bring up all sorts of arguments against it, but most of these arguments are not valid. I swat them away like flies. These goons know I am right. They are afraid to make any serious arguments because they know they will lose. That is why I put it right back in their faces and once again issue this challenge:
Let's resolve this once and for all. Please list the best serious arguments you guys can think of against the Etp model. Number them for clarity. I will answer them all and prove, once again, that the Etp model is valid.
---Futilitist
Last edited:
The Etp model doesn't model the world economy but does at the same time that it doesn't but it does... That's your reasoning.
How would the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics predict how I think and feel?
How would the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics predict how I think and feel?
That is not my reasoning at all. You made that up. I have never claimed that the Etp model models the world economy. In fact, I keep claiming just the opposite. You keep insisting on arguing with a straw man.
Once again, the Etp model does not model the world economy. The Etp model only models the rate of entropy change in the oil production system. The model is in energy units, not dollars. The Etp function generates BTU/lb/Gb. The conversion to dollars is done after the model is run and is derived from the Etp function because there is a quantifiable relationship between $/barrel and EROEI that has been maintained over time.
"The ETP model is the solution of a thermodynamic equation that gives the amount of energy on average it takes to produce oil, and its products. By subtracting that value from its energy content (exergy), the remainder is what is left over for the economy to use. When the remainder is no longer sufficent to pay for the oil, the price of oil must go down."
~BWHill
"Energy units (BTU) are constant, they do not change with position or time. $ units are constantly changing. To compare BTU to $s requires a function with a time variable. Graph# 12 shows that relationship. In 1975 one dollar could have bought, on average, 42,348 BTU; by 2010 a dollar would only have bought 6,946 BTU. The graph is used as $-energy costing is employed in the study."
~BWHill
"Let's say you want to buy a gallon of gasoline, and it cost $1 (that was called the good old days). Were does the dollar come from? You may have a job, or business that earns that dollar for you, but in general that dollar had to come from the economy in which you live (which is now planet earth). To produce that dollar it took energy, labor, capital, and any other quantity you want to include. The amount of energy it took to produce that dollar can be found from Graph#12: http://www.thehillsgroup.org/depletion2_008.htm .
In 2014 that was, on average, 5,860 BTU. If you had less than 5,860 BTU you couldn't generate enough economic activity to buy a $1's worth of gasoline.
A gallon of petroleum has a fixed energy content depending on its API density:
Graph#20 http://www.thehillsgroup.org/depletion2_011.htm
Exergy is just another word for energy content; it is what the EIA quotes when they calculate world energy production (it is also frequently referred to as available energy). Now, as time progresses it takes more, and more of the energy content of that oil to produce the oil, and its products (gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, etc). When the energy left over becomes less than 5,860 BTU you can no longer buy a $1's worth of gasoline. Basically, no matter how much you want it, you won't have the money to pay for it."
~BWHill
As far as unforeseen events go:
"Although the long term movement of oil prices is well predicted by the ETP model, its short term pricing is affected significantly by economic and geopolitical events. 1998 was the DotCom bust, 2001 the World Trade Center disaster, and 2008 the announcement by the Federal Reserve to begin large scale monetization. For each event the price of oil reacted dramatically, but eventually passed back through the curve. The mean of the percent deviation ($Projected - $Actual)/$Projected is 0.000, stdv = 0.330. From 1960-2009 movement beyond the curve was exactly compensated for by later movement in the opposite direction. For forty four (44) years crude oil prices have, on average, exactly followed the curve."
~BWHill
---Futilitist
Last edited:
now you're simply initiating pathetic shenanigans while everyone points out the continuous contradictions and you then show from this your hypocritical persona.Wow. Tag team wrestling again. Why are you clarifying Beer w/Straw's non-argument? You guys are the Borg.
Your answers are not actually serious are they? The only one you got right was #3. So, the only one you got right was the economics question! You totally failed thermodynamics. How come all you "scientists" actually only went to business school?
Dude, all processes in the universe are subject to the second law of thermodynamics. Your argument (?) is completely invalid. If you really don't understand this, you'll just have to take my word for it. Besides, I know you really do understand this basic physics concept, so why are you doing this?
I asked for a serious argument. All I get is more bullshit.
I have shown convincingly throughout this thread that that the Etp model is, in fact, valid. People bring up all sorts of arguments against it, but most of these arguments are not valid. I swat them away like flies. These goons know I am right. They are afraid to make any serious arguments because they know they will lose. That is why I put it right back in their faces and once again issue this challenge:
Let's resolve this once and for all. Please list the best serious arguments you guys can think of against the Etp model. Number them for clarity. I will answer them all and prove, once again, that the Etp model is valid.
---Futilitist
on top of that this etp thing-y is obviously 100% shiit.
i already have explain why so there's no need for your diverting, repeating, hypocritical shenanigans from this comment of mine, but as any professional mental malfunction-ist does, i'm sure you will.
yes, yes.... it's that simple.
i personally had enough of this nonsense.
Yup, we are all part of a world wide conspiracy to keep you from spreading the truth.
Yes, they are.
I'm not a scientist, I am a chemical engineer.
So tell me how does the "oil production process... experience entropy over time"? Better yet what is that suppose to mean. How does a process experience entropy?
You have not a clue what you are talking about.
*giggles*
I think almost every page on this thread mentions economy and you tie in the collapse of civilization -apocalypse- with the world economy...
I would have a buffoon post it on science forums.
By the way did you hear that the Shell is pulling out the arctic, apparently the exploration was not promising. So this is good news for consumers according to your model, because less oil that means the price of will drop.
I think I have spent enough time on this thread listening to your panicked crying that the "end is nigh"!!!
Civilization collapse and the Etp model are two separate things. Quit conflating them. I predict civilizational collapse, the Etp model does not. The Etp model only predicts the price of oil. We were talking about the validity of the Etp model. You are just trying to change the subject again.
Bullshit. Based on your demonstrated lack of understanding of the second law of thermodynamics, you are either lying about being a chemical engineer or you are a lying chemical engineer.
http://www.calpoly.edu/~rbrown/entropy.html
Any process either increases the entropy of the universe - or leaves it unchanged. Entropy is constant only in reversible processes which occur in equilibrium. All natural processes are irreversible.
All natural processes tend toward increasing disorder. And although energy is conserved, its availability is decreased.
Nature proceeds from the simple to the complex, from the orderly to the disorderly, from low entropy to high entropy.
I have no idea why any so called chemical engineer would attempt to misrepresent the second law of thermodynamics. But that is what you did. Wow.
Don't call me names. It is rude. It doesn't belong in a serious science discussion. And it just shows how desperate you are.
Demand will fall with production, so the price will just keep going down. That is what the model forecasts. You may not understand that and you may be astonished, but ignorance and astonishment are not a valid argument.By the way did you hear that the Shell is pulling out the arctic, apparently the exploration was not promising. So this is good news for consumers according to your model, because less oil that means the price of will drop.
I think you have too.
I have shown convincingly throughout this thread that that the Etp model is, in fact, valid. People bring up all sorts of arguments against it, but most of these arguments are not valid. I swat them away like flies. These goons know I am right. They are afraid to make any serious arguments because they know they will lose. That is why I put it right back in their faces and once again issue this challenge:
Let's resolve this once and for all. Please list the best serious arguments you guys can think of against the Etp model. Number them for clarity. I will answer them all and prove, once again, that the Etp model is valid.
---Futilitist
Last edited:
*giggles*
It is miraculous that you have independently confirmed the Etp model that miraculously predicts the downfall of the world economy that miraculously confirms the apocalypse.
Any more revelations?
- Status