Why does decomposition increase entropy? According to the dictionary entropy is a measure of the energy in a system or process that is unavailable to do work.
Decomposition (exothermic) releases heat to the environment which is then no longer available to do work - an increase in entropy, exactly as your dictionary described it. Consider an ordinary match: it contains energy which is available to do work. Once it's struck and burned up (chemical decomposition), that energy is no longer available - entropy has increased.
If you would like to learn more about this subject see here: Decomposition: http://www.gasresources.net/DisposalBioClaims.htm Entropy: http://www.gasresources.net/ThrmcCnstrnts.htm
I mainly skimed some sections of the second, but gathered that it asserts that it is not possible to form the complex hydrocarbons of oil from biologic sources for two main reasons: (1) that would be an increase in the energy per carbon unit (typically CH2) compared to that in the proposed biological sources material and this is impossible, so biologic oil is impossible. (2) that if some how (1) problem were over come, then there would be lot more free carbon produced but coal is not found with the oil deposit. (I did not read carefully enough to follow reason for this but think it has to due with the fact biological material contains N and O atoms also.) Article starts, as it should, with discussion of the simple carbon only system, noting that there are only two (diamond and graphite) and that diamnd is the higher energy one and really not stable, but because of it structure its spontaneous conversion to the lower energy per carbon form is very slow. This argument (1) applies equally well to diamonds. I.e. it also proves heat and presure inside the Earth cannot produce diamonds. Argument (2) would make a lot of sense if oil were a solid; but not only is it not, it even flows thru rock in most of the oil wells. (Some small amount of oil is trapped above water in salt domes, but high percent (99+% ?) is found in rocks as only they can support the presure of he overburden of earth. The Saudi have probably pulled oil out too fast for max primary recovery. (I.e. collapsed /compressed the rocks to make them impervious near the drill pipe end. The oil should have extracted more slowly so more distant oil could flow under the produced pressure gradient to replace he oil being removed.) Do you have any arguments not easily destroyed by obvious facts? (Like Earth's heat and pressure can make diamonds, the higher energy state, and that oil does flow, even thru rocks)?
It also applies equally well to any chemical system that is in thermodynamic disequilibrium with its environment - like those that take place within living organisms. It's patent nonsense
Did you actually think anyone thought you would read it thoroughly? Clearly you don't understand the argument. The argument is not that the earth cannot produce diamonds. The argument is that diamonds can only be generated in the mantle. I take it you've never heard of solid bitumen or asphalt? How is this relevant? "I keep no secret from you that when there were some new finds, I told them, 'no, leave it in the ground, with grace from god, our children need it'." - King Abdullah Al Saud Are you suggesting that the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and the Russian Academy of Sciences are unaware of how diamonds and oil are formed?
No, he's suggesting that a certain poster to this forum with a warped agenda, is unaware of the problems oil and diamond formation present to their deluded arguments. (that's you) P.S. The paper does present some interesting results; so why if this was done in 2001, hasn't anyone repeated the experiments? Why do the results throw so much doubt, as the authors claim, on biogenic theories? Aren't they jumping to conclusions, just a little? Isn't the approach supposed to go: wait until several other groups get similar results, develop a consensus within a significant group of scientists, then suggest the theories need reviewing? Jumping to conclusions, claiming a conspiracy, and so on, just ain't science.
They have. You're simply ignorant. "Abiogenic gasses are a clear fact. I can make them on the lab bench today." -- Barbara Sherwood Lollar, 2005 It should be obvious: it's impossible for oil to form in the pressure regime of the earth's crust. No. This is based on over 200 years of peer reviewed petroleum science.
It is, provided there is a colder spot to warm with part of it, not converted to work. The max fraction as work you can get is limitied by: (Th -Tc) / Th where Th is the temperature of the heat available and Tc is the cold sink temperature accepting the non work fraction (the waste heat). (All T on the absolute scale) See Carnot for more details.
Once again, you post a quote that contradicts you. If Oil is Abiogenic, infinite, and self replacing - why would we need to leave it in the ground, and why would our children need it?
We have already established that you are incapable of recognizing contradiction. In order to achieve the goals of artificial scarcity, peak oil, and a high commodity prices.
Because there is none. When person A makes a series of generous assumptions to make a point, and can explain why those assumptions is wrong, and produces a calculation that states 'There are significantly less than X barrels of crude oil present in the world, ever' and also makes statements like 'These figures are an estimate that provides an utter absolute unexceedable, unobtainable limit' and person B produces a paper that says 'There are Y barrels of crude oil present in the world' where Y is substantially less than X there is no contradiction, the paper produced by Person B confirms the calculations and conclusions of person A. If there was a contradiction, you would be able to explicitly state what that contradiction is, but you haven't. Why? Because there is no contradiction to point out. End of story.
But if a colder spot warms with part of it, is it not counted as work (in this case heat energy)? Does the transfer of heat energy not count as work?
No, if it does no work during the transfer. Strike a match and hold it in the air for a moment. Chemical energy is converted to heat energy by the chemical process of oxidation and heat is transfered into the air by convection and radiation. But no work was done in the process.
Last part is not fully correct as a convective current will be induced in the air. To show that this is indeed "work" recover some shaft horse power from it with a tiny wind mill. I am almost 100% sure, as the same argument applies, even without any convection, as a solar cell can recover some of the radiant energy and produce shaft horse power with tiny electric motor. However, your main point, the first part, is 100% correct, but better illustrated by case with thermal contact between two different temperature bodies and zero relative motion. What first comes to mind (perhaps because of "two bodies") is my warm hand on a witch's cold left tit.* Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! - no work done (until she slaps me) :bawl: ------------- *People in the US do still say: "colder than a witch's left tit" to describe cold weather etc., do they not? I have wondered if the right one was warmer and where this expresion came from, so will refer Fraggle Rocker here.
I never said that some work could NOT be done or energy recovered. The example was meant to be very simple and clear - ONLY a match and the surrounding air, NO other miscellaneous equipment, etc. Your comments will only serve to confuse the poor boy. I've live in the U.S. for over 60 years and have heard the expression used many, many times. But it never once contained any reference to "right" OR "left" anywhere I've been (33 states and counting).
