Oh crap. You are absolutely right, what a goof.
The actual decrease in entropy of a barrel of oil is not -9146 BTU it is -114 BTU/F.
Thanks for the catch, too bad it is past the time I can edit it - now my flub is exposed to all!
The Etp Model Has Been Empirically Confirmed
- Thread starter Futilitist
- Start date
- Status
The actual decrease in entropy of a barrel of oil is not -9146 BTU it is -114 BTU/F.
Thanks for the catch, too bad it is past the time I can edit it - now my flub is exposed to all!
Thanks to origin & exchemist for pointing out flaws in futilitist's model. I have forgotten too much of my thermodynamics in last 50+ years to do that; but have done the same by a simpler method:
IE I noted in more than one post that his model (and it conclusion of collapse soon) applies equally well to whale oil - which was once critical to society's progress, even the education of children reading by whale oil lamps in the evenings. Their collapse did not happen as that oil became unaffordable expensive.
Nor will the modern society collapse when petroleum becomes too expensive as car fuel. We will as they did, find better and cheaper alternatives. In our case one is ALREADY known, but suppressed in their self interest by Big Oil's lies an propaganda as well as millions big oil gives lobbyist to bribe congressmen to pass import tariffs, etc. Brazil has been driving cars on alcohol made from sugar cane for more than 35 years. - More than a generation.
I use it as it is cheaper per mile driven and slightly more powerful in the motor than gasoline. It is cleaner burning so I get lower repaid /tune up bills. It is RENEWABLE and slightly Carbon Negative* - Not a major cause of global warming.
This proof of the falseness of futilitist's model and claims, does not require good understanding of thermodynamics.
*Some of the CO2 removed from the air by the growing cane, remains in the ground when the cane is cut and large volumes are always in various storage tanks: Million of fuel tanks in cars; thousands of under ground tanks at the filling stations; hundreds of larger tanks at ports; and tens of huge ocean shipping tankers. Every gram of carbon that comes out of the car's tail pipe was earlier removed from the air. A slightly carbon negative liquid fuel most IC engines can be modified to use for a few hundred dollars at most. There is more abandoned pasture to grow all that would be needed and currently unemployed, low skill, laborers would get jobs and then buy first world products.
A "win- win" for all but big oil.
IE I noted in more than one post that his model (and it conclusion of collapse soon) applies equally well to whale oil - which was once critical to society's progress, even the education of children reading by whale oil lamps in the evenings. Their collapse did not happen as that oil became unaffordable expensive.
Nor will the modern society collapse when petroleum becomes too expensive as car fuel. We will as they did, find better and cheaper alternatives. In our case one is ALREADY known, but suppressed in their self interest by Big Oil's lies an propaganda as well as millions big oil gives lobbyist to bribe congressmen to pass import tariffs, etc. Brazil has been driving cars on alcohol made from sugar cane for more than 35 years. - More than a generation.
I use it as it is cheaper per mile driven and slightly more powerful in the motor than gasoline. It is cleaner burning so I get lower repaid /tune up bills. It is RENEWABLE and slightly Carbon Negative* - Not a major cause of global warming.
This proof of the falseness of futilitist's model and claims, does not require good understanding of thermodynamics.
*Some of the CO2 removed from the air by the growing cane, remains in the ground when the cane is cut and large volumes are always in various storage tanks: Million of fuel tanks in cars; thousands of under ground tanks at the filling stations; hundreds of larger tanks at ports; and tens of huge ocean shipping tankers. Every gram of carbon that comes out of the car's tail pipe was earlier removed from the air. A slightly carbon negative liquid fuel most IC engines can be modified to use for a few hundred dollars at most. There is more abandoned pasture to grow all that would be needed and currently unemployed, low skill, laborers would get jobs and then buy first world products.
A "win- win" for all but big oil.
Last edited:
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Oh crap. You are absolutely right, what a goof.
The actual decrease in entropy of a barrel of oil is not -9146 BTU it is -114 BTU/F.
Thanks for the catch, too bad it is past the time I can edit it - now my flub is exposed to all!
I wouldn't worry. T
I wouldn't worry, this sort of thing is what we get with real science, after all. It often takes a couple of iterations to get the maths right - or at least it does whenever I try it.....
Point is, you and I know, roughly speaking, what we're doing, so we can have this sort of conversation about the maths
.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Very true. Several of us have pointed out numerous flaws that don't depend on thermodynamic reasoning. Yours is a nice illustration of the fact that, as the "model" takes no account of alternative sources of energy for society to oil (what a stupid assumption, eh?), it can't possibly be valid.
It doesn't matter. Futilitist has played victim to the mods throughout this thread it'll never be locked. No matter how stupid it is.
:EDIT:
Oh noes, I've been reported who knows how many times by Futilitist, ... Mods cherry pick much, over 1 ooo posts?
:EDIT:
Oh noes, I've been reported who knows how many times by Futilitist, ... Mods cherry pick much, over 1 ooo posts?
Last edited:
This thread is confusing (that must be the kind of understatement only some kind of idiot--me--could make). It appears the main source of confusion is centered on entropy, what it is and its relation to, well, energy or more specifically the energy return from a barrel of oil, hence its market value, versus the energy cost of filling the barrel from some reservoir, or the cost of bringing the oil to market.
Entropy has a thermodynamic guise, but it isn't the only one. Is the problem here about what thermodynamic entropy is, in the context of open and closed systems, and what kind of entropic system a market is? If that's even a meaningful thing to ask, type of thing.
My very sketchy understanding of market dynamics is that a supplier meets demand (and makes a profit) by producing goods and bringing them to a market without losing money, which is the same as saying the goods don't depreciate before you can sell them.
Oil production is more expensive today than decades ago and will be more expensive in the future, and known reserves aren't apparently that well known because its profitable for a country to inflate this figure. There are seemingly a lot of reasons for the current oil glut and low price, some political and some because of new reservoirs coming on line particularly in America which wants to reduce its foreign dependence on oil. I can't see any thermodynamics or even an idea of it here.
Entropy has a thermodynamic guise, but it isn't the only one. Is the problem here about what thermodynamic entropy is, in the context of open and closed systems, and what kind of entropic system a market is? If that's even a meaningful thing to ask, type of thing.
My very sketchy understanding of market dynamics is that a supplier meets demand (and makes a profit) by producing goods and bringing them to a market without losing money, which is the same as saying the goods don't depreciate before you can sell them.
Oil production is more expensive today than decades ago and will be more expensive in the future, and known reserves aren't apparently that well known because its profitable for a country to inflate this figure. There are seemingly a lot of reasons for the current oil glut and low price, some political and some because of new reservoirs coming on line particularly in America which wants to reduce its foreign dependence on oil. I can't see any thermodynamics or even an idea of it here.
Last edited:
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Yes, more or less. The assertion was made at the start that the 2nd Law of TD makes the imminent (=within 5 years or so) collapse of civilisation inescapable, because of the rate of entropy increase in something called the "Petroleum Production System", which is said to be that subset of the total economy concerned with oil extraction, refining and distribution - or something pretty close to that.
An assertion was also made that, as oil becomes harder to extract, its price will go down, not up and, further, that the energy content of a barrel of oil is already insufficient to provide enough energy to recover and process the next barrel, i.e. we are already in a net energy deficit, leading to an inevitable economic death spiral. There were a number of other claims too but these, I think, have been the main ones that have generated the.....er....... debate.
If you want to have a go, please do. Most of us have just about had enough.
I certainly have, futilitist's whole premise is freaking goofy.
Quit trolling. We know russ has done his homework. You haven't. If you had we wouldn't be discussing complete nonsense with you. You're a Dunning and Kruger candidate. You don't possess the meta cognitive skills to realize how ignorant you actually are. You think you know what you're talking about. You don't. Dunning and Kruger believe folks like you can rescue yourself from complete irrelevance by getting some scholarship.
Hey Russ.
When you responded to my last post, you forgot to address this part:
Stop it!
You are trying to set up the same false claim about the second law of thermodynamics that got you into trouble before.
You are jumping the shark by switching to machines.
The idealized closed system you keep bringing up so deceptively is what is called adiabatic. Adiabatic means it occurs without transfer of heat or matter between a system and its surroundings; energy is transferred only as work. Closed systems are what is called reversible. Theoretically their entropy production rate is zero (ΔS = 0), but this does not actually happen in nature.
With the exception of idealized adiabatic and isentropic systems, all other systems in the universe are open systems. Open systems are what is called irreversible. That means that their entropy production rate is greater than zero (ΔS > 0).
These are the most basic concepts in thermodynamics, Russ!
Reread carefully what INFO-MAN and Chestermiller had to say about the subject:
INFO-MAN said:
I agree that most people have a very hard time grasping entropy and the second law of thermodynamics. But I am not sure I understand why your article keeps referring to reversible processes and adiabatic idealizations. In natural systems, the entropy production rate of every process is always positive (ΔS > 0) or zero (ΔS = 0). But only idealized adiabatic (perfectly insulated) and isentropic (frictionless, non-viscous, pressure-volume work only) processes actually have an entropy production rate of zero. Heat is produced, but not entropy. In nature, this ideal can only be an approximation, because it requires an infinite amount of time and no dissipation.
Chestermiller said:
This is an example of one of those instances I was referring to in which the constraints on the equations is not spelled out clearly enough, and, as a result, confusion can ensue. The situation you are referring to here with the inequality (ΔS > 0) and equality (ΔS = 0) applies to the combination of the system and the surroundings, and not just to a closed system. Without this qualification, the student might get the idea that for a closed system, ΔS≥0 always, which is, of course, not the case.
Even though reversible processes are an idealization, there is still a need for beginners to understand them...
INFO-MAN said:
You hardly mention irreversible processes. An irreversible process degrades the performance of a thermodynamic system, and results in entropy production. Thus, irreversible processes have an entropy production rate greater than zero (ΔS > 0), and that is really what the second law is all about (beyond the second law analysis of machines or devices). Every naturally occurring process, whether adiabatic or not, is irreversible (ΔS > 0), since friction and viscosity are always present.
Chestermiller said:
I'm sorry that impression came through to you because that was not my intention. I feel that it is very important for students to understand the distinction between real irreversible processes paths and ideal reversible process paths. Irreversible process paths are what really happens. But reversible process paths are what we need to use to get the change in entropy for a real irreversible process path.
INFO-MAN said:
Here is my favorite example of an irreversible thermodynamic process, the Entropy Rate Balance Equation for Control Volumes:
$$\frac{dS_{CV}}{dt} =\sum_j\frac{\dot{Q}_{j}}{T_{j}} +\sum_i\dot{m}_{i}s_{i} -\sum_e\dot{m}_{e}s_{e}$$
Chestermiller said:
This equation applies to the more general case of an open system for which mass is entering and exiting, and I was trying to keep things simple by restricting the discussion to closed systems. Also, entropy generation can be learned by the struggling students at a later stage.
INFO-MAN said:
And here are are a couple of other important things you did not mention about entropy:
1) Entropy is a measure of molecular disorder in a system. According to Kelvin, a pure substance at absolute zero temperature is in perfect order, and its entropy is zero. This is the less commonly known Third Law of Thermodynamics.
2) "A system will select the path or assemblage of paths out of available paths that minimizes the potential or maximizes the entropy at the fastest rate given the constraints." This is known as the Law of Maximum Entropy Production. "The Law of Maximum Entropy Production thus has deep implications for evolutionary theory, culture theory, macroeconomics, human globalization, and more generally
This thread was about trolling scientific illiterate nonsense as truth that will result in the end of civilization in 5 1/2 years. IE 2012. It's an illiterate doomsday thread. Fascinating this type of nonsense propagate the science threads. Continuously.
This is very nice - congratulations. However, I think it may need a slight correction. Surely the units of entropy are not energy but energy/temperature, aren't they? So to set the effect of entropy against the enthalpy released from burning the oil, we need a TΔS term, don't we?
I'll leave the calculation to you, as I struggle with with BTU and Deg F, being on the other side of the pond and thus metric.But the number will assuredly be orders of magnitude lower than the enthalpy of burning oil, which means you have proved my point, that the entropy increase mentioned in these equations has negligible impact on our thermodynamic ability to extract the oil, using - as we do - the energy from burning it to help us do so. Anybody with rudimentary understanding of thermodynamics would have realised this at the outset
Oh crap. You are absolutely right, what a goof.
The actual decrease in entropy of a barrel of oil is not -9146 BTU it is -114 BTU/F.
Thanks for the catch, too bad it is past the time I can edit it - now my flub is exposed to all!
I wouldn't worry, this sort of thing is what we get with real science, after all. It often takes a couple of iterations to get the maths right - or at least it does whenever I try it.....
Point is, you and I know, roughly speaking, what we're doing, so we can have this sort of conversation about the maths
You guys are like the Keystone Cops!
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)
There is only one temperature boundary, which is at the exit point of the reservoir, and there is no crude
entering the reservoir from the environment. So the equation reduces to:
$$\frac{dS_{CV}}{dt}=\frac{\dot{Q}_{j}}{T_{j}}-\dot{m}_{e}s_{e}+\dot{\sigma}_{cv}$$
giving: $$\frac{BTU}{sec*°R}$$
Since crude oil and water can be considered as incompressible substances for this application their specific entropy's ($$s_{c}$$ and $$s_{w}$$) are only affected by a change in temperature.
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 so the entropy of the reservoir ($$S_{cv}/dt$$) must be decreasing (negative in sign) at the same rate that entropy is transferred by mass flow from the reservoir. The temperature of the mass transporting $$s_{e}$$ is the same within the reservoir as at the exit boundary. The exit boundary is where the well bore enters the reservoir. Therefore, as $$dS_{cv}/dt$$ and $$\dot{m}s_{e}$$ ($$dS_{cv}/dt$$ → 0 as $$\dot{m}s_{e}$$ → 0) must cancel, and the heat leaving the reservoir is negative in sign, 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 PPS 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 where: 0 ≤ ETp ≤ EG
$$m_{c}$$ = 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.
So, Origin, since you are the math expert, what is wrong with all that?
--and--
exchemist,
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.
So, exchemist, why are the three nested control volumes used in the Etp model supposedly invalid?
---Futilitist
Last edited:
Why should it be zero? Is the oil production process reversible?
In natural systems, the entropy production rate of every process is always positive (ΔS > 0) or zero (ΔS = 0). But only idealized adiabatic (perfectly insulated) and isentropic (frictionless, non-viscous, pressure-volume work only) processes actually have an entropy production rate of zero. Heat is produced, but not entropy. In nature, this ideal can only be an approximation, because it requires an infinite amount of time and no dissipation.
An irreversible process degrades the performance of a thermodynamic system, and results in entropy production. Thus, irreversible processes have an entropy production rate greater than zero (ΔS > 0), and that is really what the second law is all about (beyond the second law analysis of machines or devices). Every naturally occurring process, whether adiabatic or not, is irreversible (ΔS > 0), since friction and viscosity are always present.
---Futilitist
----Breaking News----
INFO-MAN was just banned from
Forums >
Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community - Error
You have been banned for the following reason: Rules violations
They don't really specify, but apparently trying to get to the bottom of Russ _Watters ongoing PHYSICS DECEPTION is against the rules at Physics Forums!
Here is what INFO-MAN posted:
Speaker 1 said:
The second law of thermodynamics mandates that the oil production process must experience rising entropy over time.
Agree or disagree?
So, Speaker 1 was absolutely correct, yes?
And if Speaker 2 had a correct understanding of thermodynamics, he should agree with speaker 1 about this, true?
Speaker 2 said:
Regardless, the question isn't worded properly because you don't understand thermodynamics and how to apply it. What you probably should say is that the oil extraction process generates entropy. Period. But that's the key problem, isn't it: you need there to be *something* about "entropy" that makes the extraction itself get harder for no other reason.
Don't you think that is an amazingly ignorant statement? Speaker 2 is saying that rising entropy does not cause oil extraction to get harder over time! And he goes on to suggest that entropy would have to have some kind of a mysterious partner in crime, or else oil extraction could not get more difficult over time! This is clearly ridiculous, don't you agree?
Speaker 2 said:
But it doesn't. That isn't what entropy is about. So your statement is false: I disagree. Or, perhaps more accurately: your statement isn't even false, it is just nonsense.
Speaker 2 is completely wrong about this because the original statement by Speaker 1 is completely true. Right?
Speaker 2 said:
Processes generally do not "experience rising entropy". The universe does, but not individual processes.
This is the biggest falsehood that Speaker 1 tries to perpetrate. He is completely wrong. All natural processes do experience rising entropy over time, right?
Speaker 2 is just grossly misinterpreting this wiki statement of the second law:
"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."
Speaker 2 goes on to say about this:
The way entropy applies to oil extraction and use is simply that burning oil generates entropy, so the universe's entropy rises as more oil is extracted. But that in and of itself doesn't have any impact on the next barrel to be extracted.
This shows a drastic misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics, doesn't it? Speaker 2 doesn't understand that smaller systems that are a part of the entire universe can actually be modeled using the second law of thermodynamics! Why didn't you mention this glaring error?
Why are you downplaying the gross thermodynamic misconceptions that Speaker 2 obviously has?
Are you aware of the identity of Speaker 2? Are you trying to protect him?
Why did you suggest that Speaker 1 said more than what his statement actually says?
And why did you also downplay open thermodynamic systems in your original essay?
When I first saw your essay, I thought it seemed a little strange. That is why I commented on it in the first place. Now, here we are again. What's going on here?
---INFO-MAN (RIP)
--------------------------
As a part of the post above, INFO-MAN also included the Etp model methodology for commentary. Chestermiller just couldn't bring himself to answer. INFO-MAN was summarily banned and the offensive post has been censored from the Physics Forum site.
Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.
Conspirare --- To breathe together.
---Futilitist
INFO-MAN was just banned from
Forums >
Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community - Error
You have been banned for the following reason: Rules violations
They don't really specify, but apparently trying to get to the bottom of Russ _Watters ongoing PHYSICS DECEPTION is against the rules at Physics Forums!
Here is what INFO-MAN posted:
Sure it does, Chet. Remember when we discussed open systems vs closed systems? This post is about someone who doesn't think open systems even exist.
How in the world do you come up with that? Speaker 1 doesn't say anything about oil production being inherently bad. You just made that up. All Speaker 1 said was that the oil production process must experience rising entropy over time.
Speaker 1 said:
The second law of thermodynamics mandates that the oil production process must experience rising entropy over time.
Agree or disagree?
So, Speaker 1 was absolutely correct, yes?
And if Speaker 2 had a correct understanding of thermodynamics, he should agree with speaker 1 about this, true?
But the oil production system is clearly not a steady state system, is it? And the rising entropy of the oil production system would logically cause the cost of oil production to rise over time. And this causes the oil price to rise over time. This means that some oil will eventually be uneconomical to produce and, therefore, it will be left in the ground. Speaker 2's disingenuous rejection of this truth causes him to falsely reason that the oil will be produced anyway, no matter what the cost. This is totally incorrect, of course. Right?
Speaker 2 said:
Regardless, the question isn't worded properly because you don't understand thermodynamics and how to apply it. What you probably should say is that the oil extraction process generates entropy. Period. But that's the key problem, isn't it: you need there to be *something* about "entropy" that makes the extraction itself get harder for no other reason.
Don't you think that is an amazingly ignorant statement? Speaker 2 is saying that rising entropy does not cause oil extraction to get harder over time! And he goes on to suggest that entropy would have to have some kind of a mysterious partner in crime, or else oil extraction could not get more difficult over time! This is clearly ridiculous, don't you agree?
Speaker 2 said:
But it doesn't. That isn't what entropy is about. So your statement is false: I disagree. Or, perhaps more accurately: your statement isn't even false, it is just nonsense.
Speaker 2 is completely wrong about this because the original statement by Speaker 1 is completely true. Right?
Speaker 2 said:
Processes generally do not "experience rising entropy". The universe does, but not individual processes.
This is the biggest falsehood that Speaker 1 tries to perpetrate. He is completely wrong. All natural processes do experience rising entropy over time, right?
Speaker 2 is just grossly misinterpreting this wiki statement of the second law:
"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."
Speaker 2 goes on to say about this:
The way entropy applies to oil extraction and use is simply that burning oil generates entropy, so the universe's entropy rises as more oil is extracted. But that in and of itself doesn't have any impact on the next barrel to be extracted.
This shows a drastic misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics, doesn't it? Speaker 2 doesn't understand that smaller systems that are a part of the entire universe can actually be modeled using the second law of thermodynamics! Why didn't you mention this glaring error?
Well, you clearly missed a few things.
Why would you say that both need a course in communication skills? Speaker 1 only said that the oil production process must experience rising entropy over time. This is obviously a true statement, right?
Probably both. Speaker 2 is a self professed peak oil denier. But he really seems to be intentionally misrepresenting the second law of thermodynamics. His seemingly careless statement seems very carefully worded to me. I think it is more than accidentally misleading.
I get that Speaker 2 was being a bit of an ass. That is obvious. But he also got a lot of things wrong about thermodynamics. Isn't that true? If so, his main argument is simply false.
Why are you downplaying the gross thermodynamic misconceptions that Speaker 2 obviously has?
Are you aware of the identity of Speaker 2? Are you trying to protect him?
Why did you suggest that Speaker 1 said more than what his statement actually says?
And why did you also downplay open thermodynamic systems in your original essay?
When I first saw your essay, I thought it seemed a little strange. That is why I commented on it in the first place. Now, here we are again. What's going on here?
---INFO-MAN (RIP)
--------------------------
As a part of the post above, INFO-MAN also included the Etp model methodology for commentary. Chestermiller just couldn't bring himself to answer. INFO-MAN was summarily banned and the offensive post has been censored from the Physics Forum site.
Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.
Conspirare --- To breathe together.
---Futilitist
Last edited:
what link is all this on , even tho none cares for your shenanigans and being banned for your shenanigans, because it appears your shenanigans was removed from that conversation.----Breaking News----
INFO-MAN was just banned from
A site where Russ_Watters is a moderator!
Forums >
Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community - Error
You have been banned for the following reason: Rules violations
They don't really specify, but apparently trying to get to the bottom of Russ _Watters physics deception is against the rules at Physics Forums!
Here is what INFO-MAN posted:
Sure it does, Chet. Remember when we discussed open systems vs closed systems? This post is about someone who doesn't think open systems even exist.
How in the world do you come up with that? Speaker 1 doesn't say anything about oil production being inherently bad. You just made that up. All Speaker 1 said was that the oil production process must experience rising entropy over time.
Speaker 1 said:
The second law of thermodynamics mandates that the oil production process must experience rising entropy over time.
Agree or disagree?
So, Speaker 1 was absolutely correct, yes?
And if Speaker 2 had a correct understanding of thermodynamics, he should agree with speaker 1 about this, true?
But the oil production system is clearly not a steady state system, is it? And the rising entropy of the oil production system would logically cause the cost of oil production to rise over time. And this causes the oil price to rise over time. This means that some oil will eventually be uneconomical to produce and, therefore, it will be left in the ground. Speaker 2's disingenuous rejection of this truth causes him to falsely reason that the oil will be produced anyway, no matter what the cost. This is totally incorrect, of course. Right?
Speaker 2 said:
Regardless, the question isn't worded properly because you don't understand thermodynamics and how to apply it. What you probably should say is that the oil extraction process generates entropy. Period. But that's the key problem, isn't it: you need there to be *something* about "entropy" that makes the extraction itself get harder for no other reason.
Don't you think that is an amazingly ignorant statement? Speaker 2 is saying that rising entropy does not cause oil extraction to get harder over time! And he goes on to suggest that entropy would have to have some kind of a mysterious partner in crime, or else oil extraction could not get more difficult over time! This is clearly ridiculous, don't you agree?
Speaker 2 said:
But it doesn't. That isn't what entropy is about. So your statement is false: I disagree. Or, perhaps more accurately: your statement isn't even false, it is just nonsense.
Speaker 2 is completely wrong about this because the original statement by Speaker 1 is completely true. Right?
Speaker 2 said:
Processes generally do not "experience rising entropy". The universe does, but not individual processes.
This is the biggest falsehood that Speaker 1 tries to perpetrate. He is completely wrong. All natural processes do experience rising entropy over time, right?
Speaker 2 is just grossly misinterpreting this wiki statement of the second law:
"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."
Speaker 2 goes on to say about this:
The way entropy applies to oil extraction and use is simply that burning oil generates entropy, so the universe's entropy rises as more oil is extracted. But that in and of itself doesn't have any impact on the next barrel to be extracted.
This shows a drastic misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics, doesn't it? Speaker 2 doesn't understand that smaller systems that are a part of the entire universe can actually be modeled using the second law of thermodynamics! Why didn't you mention this glaring error?
Well, you clearly missed a few things.
Why would you say that both need a course in communication skills? Speaker 1 only said that the oil production process must experience rising entropy over time. This is obviously a true statement, right?
Probably both. Speaker 2 is a self professed peak oil denier. But he really seems to be intentionally misrepresenting the second law of thermodynamics. His seemingly careless statement seems very carefully worded to me. I think it is more than accidentally misleading.
I get that Speaker 2 was being a bit of an ass. That is obvious. But he also got a lot of things wrong about thermodynamics. Isn't that true? If so, his main argument is simply false.
Why are you downplaying the gross thermodynamic misconceptions that Speaker 2 obviously has?
Are you aware of the identity of Speaker 2? Are you trying to protect him?
Why did you suggest that Speaker 1 said more than what his statement actually says?
And why did you also downplay open thermodynamic systems in your original essay?
When I first saw your essay, I thought it seemed a little strange. That is why I commented on it in the first place. Now, here we are again. What's going on here?
---INFO-MAN (RIP)
--------------------------
Conspirare --- To breathe together.
---Futilitist
i looked at that previous link. that conversation took place from Apr 30, 2015 to Jul 31, 2015
Makes sense to me.
I was going to discuss this but it is not really worth it.
I have decided I will just wait to see the price of oil increase and then come back to the thread and laugh at your hand waving explanation of how that was also predicted by the ept model.
Please do. That's the only reason why this thread would be worth anything (IMO). As I said before, I never worked for the oil industry and you have at least two posters in this thread that I believe have. People might learn something.
You sound like you almost believe that. Well, I guess this is goodbye then, since we'll obviously never see each other again, because oil prices are only going down.
---Futilitist
Last edited:
- Status