[0mar]

I've read some papers where a decrease in entropy was noted with the corresponding usage of energy. I think it was closed-systems.

Basically it was, 5J used energy --> entropy equivalent --> 5J used to resume prior state.

It doesn't change any arguments because you are running on a treadmill to get back where you started to start running again.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('0mar', 'I')'ve read some papers where a decrease in entropy was noted with the corresponding usage of energy. I think it was closed-systems.

Basically it was, 5J used energy --> entropy equivalent --> 5J used to resume prior state.

It doesn't change any arguments because you are running on a treadmill to get back where you started to start running again.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('seb', 'A') small post scriptum : Xelat post above has all my support. Many of his arguments might look quite simple but to me they are enough to persuade every clever person that there is not link between nowadays and future humanity problems and entropy.

I saw his post as a new topic before and it just disappeared. And reappeared here. I felt this quite severe for a good quality post like this... I really hope there is no link between this move and the fact that a moderator has been "under attack"...

[MonteQuest]

I have received hundreds of private messages from members praising me for my insightful and reasoned posts, so I shall not detour from that proclivity here. There are some things that cannot be taught; they must be lived to understand. 2nd Law may just be one of them.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('seb', 'F')ew months ago, I tried to explain why the impact of human activities is neglectible(sic) in term of the 2nd law on Earth.

[jato]

If a large tsunami hits the coastline and wipes out 10 towns, is "mother nature" going to rebuild those towns?

Can a tornado, hurricane or any other act of nature construct buildings with running water, electrical wiring, insulation & carpeted floors?

The bickering is pointless. Humans have to expend energy (petroleum, electrical, muscle, etc.) to counteract the destruction forces of the universe (earthquakes, large meteorites, hurricanes, floods, etc, etc.)

/rant

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jato', 'I')f a large tsunami hits the coastline and wipes out 10 towns buildings, is "mother nature" going to rebuild those towns?

Can a tornado, hurricane or any other act of nature construct buildings with running water, electrical wiring, insulation & carpeted floors?

The bickering is pointless. Humans have to expend energy (petroleum, electrical, muscle, etc.) to counteract the destruction forces of the universe (earthquakes, large meteorites, hurricanes, floods, etc, etc.)

/rant

[jato]

No Monte.

I am coming out of nowhere on this. I have not been reading the Thermodynamic thread arguments because of all the pointless bickering.

(In general) I start to follow a thread, the next day it's several pages full of arguing.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jato', 'N')o Monte.

I am coming out of nowhere on this. I have not been reading the Thermodynamic thread arguments because of all the pointless bickering.

(In general) I start to follow a thread, the next day it's several pages full of arguing.

[Chuck]

I admire your persistence Monte (no sarcasm here).
Personally I do understand that we need enormous amounts of energy just to keep all things in place (infrastructure). What I'm struggling with is this idea that there will be no technical solution of PO just because of the second law. But, if so many people on this board can grasp that, it must be doable (love that word) for me too. In a way I like this "struggling with concepts". It reminds me of my struggling with the concept of time.
(the passage of time is illusionary)
Just a personal note.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Chuck', 'I') admire your persistence Monte (no sarcasm here).
Personally I do understand that we need enormous amounts of energy just to keep all things in place (infrastructure). What I'm struggling with is this idea that there will be no technical solution of PO just because of the second law. But, if so many people on this board can grasp that, it must be doable (love that word) for me too. In a way I like this "struggling with concepts". It reminds me of my struggling with the concept of time.
(the passage of time is illusionary)
Just a personal note.

[Chuck]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'T')o me, the worse thing that could happen right now, would be to find some inexhaustible new source of energy (like fusion). With our current mindset, we would doom the human race to extinction. Now if we had a paradigm shift in how we view the world, and developed fusion and also reverted back to the population of the mid-1800's, did away with the "throw-away" society, recycled everything, stopped packaging, refilled containers, and generally practised a conservation ethic, then that would be the best of all world's --even in an entropy world where it all ends anyway.

[MonteQuest]

The Entropy Law tells us that the overall disorder of the world is always increasing and the amount of available energy is always decreasing. Since human survival depends upon available energy, this means that more and more work is required to carve out an existence from an increasingly stingy environment. Subscribers to the Newtonian paradigm argue that technologies will replace less efficient human energy. Behind this kind of thinking rests this assumption: the greater flow-through of energy, the more efficient we are, the more progress we are making, and the more ordered the world is. This runs counter to 2nd Law. Remember, energy can never be created or destroyed, it can only be transformed one way--from available to unavailable. Thus, every so-called advance in efficiency only hastens the dissipation of energy and disorder in the world.

Contrary to accepted wisdom, increasing the per capita consumption of energy is not more efficient, it is the opposite--that is, if you define efficiency as a reduction in work. If you have deluded yourself into thinking that, just because machines or gadgets are doing our work for us, that less work is being done, then you are sadly mistaken. Work is the using up of energy, whether by man or machine.

We keep reaching these watersheds where we find it harder and harder to find new energy sources, raw materials, and a place in which to throw them all away. Every technology and improvement in efficiency creates a temporary utility of order at the expense of a greater disorder in the surroundings. Most people are still unwilling to believe this, but it is true, always has been. According to Jacques Ellul, the author of The Technology Society, "History shows that every technical application from its beginning presents certain unforeseeable secondary effects which are more disastrous than the lack of the technique would have been." It's almost a cruel joke that has been played upon us. Again, says Ellul, "Every successive technique has appeared because the ones which preceded it rendered unnecessary the ones which followed." Classic 2nd law.

The world is moving towards chaos because each time we come up with a new more complex technology to solve a problem, we are pouring gasoline on a fire. Many will argue that civilizations in the past used technology. Yes, but they used it as a tool, not a way to organize life's activities. When you couple exponential growth to techno-fixes, you spell disaster. This is why moving to a more simple society is so compelling. The trends of technology have done more to increase world pollution than sheer population, by far. Giving up things like leaf blowers, electric can openers and toothbrushes will be easy. What we will keep and what we won't will be hotly debated in the future. It will be a world where expediency no longer rules over sustainability.

[Woody]

Hi Monte,

I'm new to this forum. I am a degreed mechanical engineer, and a registered PE. I worked in the generation planning department at an electric utility for five years.

I've read this thread and I agree with everything you've said. I was educated to agree with the 2nd law, and I still agree with it.

The 2nd law tells us when something is possible or not possible, like a perpetual motion machine, or a new car that runs off air. The laymen have been ripped -off by these proposals, but engineers with their knowledge of the laws of physics know a con artist when they see one. They help protect the general public.

That is what engineers are here for: to utilize the resources of nature, responsibly, for the benefit of mankind. Unfortunately many posters on this forum forget that and try to argue with the facts. If they want to invest their hard earned dollars in a motor that runs off air, they can't say we didn't warn them. There is no free lunch, if there was we would be eating it.

With all that said, I have a question about antimatter. What is the maximum theoretically achievable efficiency of antimatter? When I say this I am asking "all things considered". Antimatter must be produced, annihilated, and dispossed of in an energy generating system. I would like to see this technology realize it's maximum potential.

I have a white paper from NASA on the subject of antimatter propulsion devices. It is definately rocket science:

NASA Antimatter Propulsion Systems

What do you think about a decrease in entropy when mass is annihilated? Is there a corallary between this and the refrigerator example you gave?

I am pretty new with this concept, but I had one month of nuclear engineering professional training with the utility. I understand "mass defect" and nuclear energy as it relates to energy production.

As an engineer, my gut hunch is that there is no free lunch with antimatter either?

Thanks much

W

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Woody', 'W')hat do you think about a decrease in entropy when mass is annihilated? Is there a corallary between this and the refrigerator example you gave?

As an engineer, my gut hunch is that there is no free lunch with antimatter either?

[Woody]

Hello Monte,

I agree with you.

I've read reports, saying that other methods could be developed to make the production efficiency greater than the theoretical 50% maximum. It seems like that would violate the laws of energy conservation.

The antimatter fuel is capable of producing a rocket velocity up to about half the speed of light, which is incredible.

Here on earth there could possibly be some application, like speeding up the rotation of the earth with a thrust mechanism of some type. This would shorten nights and days and help moderate the wild climatic swings we are getting, reducing our dependence on energy for heating and cooling.

Just a thought.

How about your associates, do they have any ideas on antimatter efficiency?

Thanks

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Woody', 'H')ow about your associates, do they have any ideas on antimatter efficiency?

[Woody]

Hello Monte,

On the energy front, have you seen how much coal there is in the US?
We have more than 50% of the world's coal reserves, and 10 times as much energy as all the oil energy from the combined arab countries. I know there are green house gasses to worry about -- but man is that a lot of energy!

Coal can be gassified for combined cycle power plants, and that is currently happening in Europe where coal costs are higher.

Your group might want to subscribe to the EPRI database. It has all the energy technolgies evaluated -- at the US taxpayer's expense. Their research center is in Palo Alto, California.

There is a limit to demand side management, and there isn't a lot of incentive to do it. The regulatory agencies view it as smoke and mirrors accounting gimmicks whenever a utility goes in for a rate case on DSM initiatives. The utilities don't get anything back, and they lose interest in conservation.

I worked in generation planning for 5 years & seen a lot of stuff.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Woody', 'H')ello Monte,

On the energy front, have you seen how much coal there is in the US?
We have more than 50% of the world's coal reserves, and 10 times as much energy as all the oil energy from the combined arab countries. I know there are green house gasses to worry about -- but man is that a lot of energy!

[Woody]

Hello Monte,

Thanks for the correction. I was going on memory when I said 50% of the coal reserves reside in the US. At the time (several years ago) when I read that statistic I think it was more like 40%. Anyway, the US has more coal than anyone else.

On another subject, what about nuclear power? It provides no greenhouse gasses, and all the nuclear fuel rod waste that's been produced in the US occupies about as much space as one US skyscraper.

I don't have much of a problem with returning fissionable materials to the earth from which they came. They are disposed of in railroad cars that are able to withstand puncture on a steel spike when they are dropped 40 feet. The hole they are dropped into for disposal is about 2 miles deep.

Chernobal (an unstable reactor design) gave the nuke industry a bad rap.

In the meantime the nuclear industry worldwide continues to chug along quitely for decades. Japan doesn't have a problem with nuclear power. But somehow the mindset in the US is "no nuke."

What is the rational basis for not having nuclear power?

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Woody', '
')On another subject, what about nuclear power?
What is the rational basis for not having nuclear power?