The Etp Model Has Been Empirically Confirmed

Well, I care about my hair.

Is there something wrong with that?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Science has it's place, but there are many important things that can never be understood by the human mind.
1) Disagree Strongly
2) Disagree Mostly
3) Disagree Somewhat
4) Agree Somewhat
5) Agree Mostly
6) Agree Strongly



---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Dude. You have no idea what you are talking about.

I sure as hell do know a lot about thermodynamics. *WAY* more than you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

On the whole thread, Krash661 was only right about one thing:

I am INFO-MAN. Really.



Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(aka INFO-MAN)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

We wouldn't be able to refine the crude because circulation equipment would lose efficiency due to entropy and wouldn't be cost effective. Probably would have hit the etp peak oil in the dark ages. The dark ages still happening in the minds of doomsday cranks.

 

1) Disagree Strongly

I believe we already understand the most important way the universe works. Some 33 constants (mathematical functions and structures) are responsible for everything we see and experience.

When you start talking about metaphysics, it becomes relatively less and less important. Answers to those remaining questions will not affect our physical existence in the least. You yourself used a universal constant (thermodynamics) in your OP proposal.

Do you think being right or wrong will make any difference to the evolution of the present into the future (determinism)?

 

All of the above.

 

You mean if there really was such a thing as entropy? You are wrong because the pipes do suffer from entropy but they don't cost that much to repair. Their entropy is already factored in and is not increasing.

So, based on your false premise, you come to a false conclusion:

And to end your ridiculous reductio ad absurdum, you throw in an ad hominem, as well. Good job.

Good for you.

Yes.

That is not a valid answer. It will throw off my data.



---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You are jumping the shark by switching to machines.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Machines are not relevant because the world oil production system is not a machine! Machines are idealized thermodynamic systems. They are closed systems. The oil production system is an open system. It can be modeled using the Entropy Rate Balance Equation for Control Volumes, as is accomplished in the Etp model.

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!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You can't just lie about them!

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 the time-dependent development of the Earth as a ecological planetary system as a whole."

Chestermiller said:As I said above, I was trying to limit the scope exclusively to what the beginning students needed to understand in order to do their homework.

--------------

Looks like you need to do your homework, Russ!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

INFO-MAN and Chestermiller are talking about the thermodynamic analysis of open vs closed systems. They even mention the Entropy Rate Balance Equation for Control Volumes. That is the second law statement that is validly used to construct the Etp model!

Both INFO-MAN and Chestermiller agree with me about the nature of entropy. They both seem to understand thermodynamics pretty well. Are you claiming they are both wrong?

You bet I do.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Hey Russ, remember, you have the right to remain silent.



---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(aka INFO-MAN)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You mean, aside from cheap repairs of a broken pipeline (or underwater valve), there is no entropy when billions of gallons of oil spills away and instead of delivering energy, directly affects the entire environment (including local thermodynamics) negatively.

The same as arguing the benefits of E = Mc^2 is meaningless, when an atomic bomb explodes in your backyard and renders several hundred square miles of developed (expended energy) areas uninhabitable for humans for many years. How do you calculate this? Entropy? Thermodynamics?.

Oil may consist of trapped energy, but this energy is contained in a deadly medium. When a mishap occurs the cost to the environment is incalculable. Oil spills and Nuclear mishaps are clear evidence that the use of those methods bring great danger as well.

Would it not be nice to extract energy from present dynamic conditions, which have minimal impact on the thermodynamic properties of the earth's ecosphere?

IMO, in the long run this would be the cheapest sustainable source of energy imaginable.

 

Uh... Data?

I don't really feel special. But it's up to you.

 

We are only half way down the page at this point. There is still a long way to go till the next page. But once you get there, you can just repeat your arguments again like they never happened. After 53 pages. Amazing.

You guys lost the argument a long time ago. The Etp model is valid. Just admit it.



---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(aka INFO-MAN)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Surely you know how the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics affects your feelings. All that accusations, assumptions should lead to a time-out for introspection over the years. As it stands, you lost the argument cause you have failed to do so.

 

Bahahahahahahaah!!!! Oh, man, that's a great one. Bookmarked! Machines are all closed systems (after I just explained the difference!?)? Machines are not relevant to the thermodynamics of oil production and use? Machines are all idealized? Dear, lord, what do you think "thermodynamics" even is? Or what this thread is about? Or what the oil production system is composed of (hint: it starts with an "m")? It's a good thing you aren't self-aware enough to be embarrassed by how that makes you look. Tell you what: google the word "thermodynamics" and separately, "closed vs open system" and instead of copying and pasting from a link, actually read the link. While you're doing that, I'll sit here and feel empathetically embarassed for you, since I'm such a compassionate guy.

 

Laugh while you still can.

You don't need to worry about all your precious machines so much, Russ. There is no need to even factor them in.

The average world oil production cost rises as the resource is degraded because that is what rising entropy does to the whole system. Entropy never rests. As each barrel of oil is removed from the ground, the next barrel costs just a little more. Entropy is the reason that we now are forced to use very low EROEI sources of oil like tight oil and tar sands, and harder to refine sour crudes.

Luckily, we have the second law of thermodynamics to help us make sense of a complicated oil production system by directly measuring the rising energetic lifting cost of the oil coming out of the reservoir.

Go ahead and play with your little adiabatic machines, Russ. And pretend that there is no way to measure entropy, and that there is no such thing as peak oil, and nothing can go wrong...go wrong...go wrong...

Meanwhile, back in the real world, here is the way to measure the rising entropy production in the world oil production system using science:

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.

Russ, in all seriousness, you lost the debate a long, long time ago. You have no credibility, whatsoever. But you persist, nonetheless. Is the point just to wear me out? Then when I leave, just make a big mess so no one can read the thread? If so, why do you do this? Keeping up with, like, 10 people who are all making a massive, concerted, and coordinated effort to stop a simple engineering report from being known and understood by readers who might be curious, takes a lot of work on my part. I know it not fun for you right now like you keep pretending it is. Your pride is hurt. I understand. Since I am so kicking your ass right now, and you know you are wrong anyway, why do it at all?

I have boiled it down to 2 possible choices:

1) You are insane (or perhaps retarded)
2) You get a paycheck for doing this

So, which is it?

Oh wait, I guess the question should go to all of you:

1) You are all insane
2) You all work for the same company

If I apply Bayes Theorem to this puzzle the answer is very clear:

Conspirare----to breath together.



Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(aka INFO-MAN)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Publish it then.

 

OK thanks for confirming, Russ. As a chemist rather than a process engineer by training, I am familiar with the thermodynamic treatment of closed systems, but less so with open ones. Though, unlike Fute, I can read about, and often actually understand, those concepts in science I am less familiar with

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

...

 

Once again, without taking into account the chemical energy content of the oil, which is hundreds of times greater than the piffling amounts of energy transferred due to changes in its physical properties during extraction, which is all that these hieroglyphics are concerned with. There is NO TERM in any of these expressions referring to the chemical energy content. This energy content is what powers everything we do when we use oil as fuel. Leaving it out is an unbelievably stupid error.

You are a certifiable idiot.

 

Just for fun let’s look at the entropy change of oil that is extracted from a well.

A simple equation for the change in entropy of a liquid:
\(dS = C_p\frac{dT}{T}-\beta V dP\)

For an incompressible fluid \(\beta\) is zero. Oil is not incompressible but it is nearly so, in fact a change of a 1000 psi will have no more effect on the entropy than approximately a 1 oC degree change in temperature, so we will assume that \(\beta\) is zero.

Therefore the entropy equation reduces to:
\(dS = C_p\frac{dT}{T}\)

Which gives:
\(\Delta S = avgC_p ln \frac{T_2}{T_1}\)

If we assume that there is an oil reservoir at about 7,000 feet underground its temperature would be on the order of 150 F. Let’s assume the ambient temperature is 70 F at the surface.

The average heat capacity of oil in this temperature range is:
\(ave C_p\) = 0.5 BTU/lbm-F
A barrel of oil (42 gal) weighs approximately: 300 lb

The entropy change of a barrel of oil would be:
\(\Delta S = -9146 BTU \)

By the way the BTUs (potential chemical energy) in a barrel of oil is approximately: 5,800,000 BTUs

So that is nice, but what does it mean? What is the cost of that entropy change? Well, the cost is nothing! Assume that the ambient temperature was 100 F, that would mean a much lower entropy change – would the cost change? No.

Another interesting fact is that the entropy change of the first barrel removed from the oil reservoir is that SAME as the last barrel of oil removed from the reservoir. As we have shown the entropy change is only dependent on the temperature change of the oil reservoir, which will not change over time.

So why is the cost of oil production increasing? Several reasons but the 3 major ones are inflation, more expensive exploration due to difficult locations of the oil, and increase costs of drilling and extraction techniques (fracking, tar sands).

Will we run out of oil? We will run out of affordable oil, as the amount of oil decreases there will be a corresponding increase in the cost of the oil. This will force a move to cheaper alternatives.

Are we currently experiencing the collapse of civilization due to decrease in the supply of oil? Uh, no, currently there is an oversupply of oil which is why the price is low.

Will the price of oil stay low? No. If you run out and buy a gas guzzler it is going to be rather hard to sell in a year or 2.

Does the entropy change in the oil extracted have anything to do with the price of oil? No.
Is the entropy change in the oil extracted increasing over time? No.

 

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.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.