Replying to LO28544 --
In Energy and Entropy LO28544
>To trip is part of that authentic learning. The same is trying to
>explain what one knows self to others.
Thanks, At. More and more, I am enjoying benefits of the axiom "to learn
is to create," and find myself applying myself creatively to make my tacit
understandings explicit. Right now, I feel strongly that I want and need
to digest on physical world calculations to improve my understanding.
I had written:
>I wonder, how many different kinds of energy can we measure?
>** Pneumatical energy:
>P(pressure, intensive) x V (volume, extensive)...
To which At replied:
>The list which you have compiled is already impressive. I am satisfied
>that your otherness ("quality-variety") with respect to energy is on
>par. But have you made sure that so is the other six 7Es too? For
>example, do you picture mentally P x /_\V work as a ordered flow
>("becoming-being") of pneumatical energy? In other words, are you fully
>aware of the liveness in work?
In the interim, I have continued to think about this. I also have a
Physics textbook (1970) that I have digested on.
Yes, I can see "work" as the ordered flow of energy. It's more energy
itself, about which I lack sureness, I think. As a calculation, I think
I'm beginning to recognize simply that I must be comfortable knowing that
I can calculate/infer it using different methods.
E = mC^2
But I wonder, how did Einstein organize his thinking to come up with this
equation, and what does it say? Energy is directly proportional to mass.
That is, I guess, we can infer and calculate energy (ability to do work)
if we can measure mass. Does it matter whether the system is close to
equilibrium or far regarding this equation? In this expression, it seems
there is no ordered flow of energy. Instead it simply observes the being
nature of energy contained. ?
I suppose this a calculation of what Leibniz would have called "vis
I observe it seems to say nothing about otherness (quality-variety). I am
confident there is an important difference in the energies contained in,
for example, a kilogram of sand and a kilogram of oil, or even a kilogram
of oil and a kilogram of coal.
This seems to me to suggest the important relationship between total
energy E and free energy F. Oil embodies significant free energy
accumulated over millions of years of solar and tectonic activity in a way
that sand does not, yes?
Back to calculating energies. We can infer kinetic energy in the
being-becoming ordered flow of work, force x distance. Thus we seem to be
saying, by virtue of its motion we can infer that something possesses
My old physics book gives an example of doing work on a ball, and
concludes that the work done on a ball equals the kinetic energy of the
Force F x distance s = 1/2 x m x final-velocity^2
Thus, for example, they calculate a final result in Joules
[kg-(meters^2) per second^2].
The text says nothing about conditions being near or far from equilibrium,
but I'm assuming that this is another example of the first twin syndrome,
in this case fixation on close-to-equilibrium situations. Work = energy.
W = E. The glossary of this text defines Joule as "the unit of work and
energy in the metric system."
So it seems we can calculate/infer energy from mass. And we can
calculate/infer energy from the ordered flow of work. And we can
calculate/infer energy from the ordered flow of heat.
My old textbook says, "Every body of matter contains a certain amount of
'internal energy' in addition to any kinetic or potential energy it may
possess by virtue of its motion or position...(based on) its composition,
mass, and physical state. However, the temperature of the body alone is
what determines whether internal energy will be transferred from it to
another body with which it is in contact or vice versa."
Temperature indicates both direction of internal energy flow and "in a
microscopic sense as a measure of average molecular kinetic energy."
And I understand from At that a difference in temperatures creates and
intensive property, a force that results in the ordered flow of heat. It
seems like the textbook might better have said that it is the
"relationship of temperatures" that determine whether internal energy will
be transferred from one system to another."
Thus, close to equilibrium,
Q = m x c x /_\T; where Q is heat and T is temperature and c refers to
specific heat capacity
This seems to embody the observation that heat flow of thermal energy is
proportional to mass, the quality of the mass, and the force created by
difference in temperatures.
I notice in all three expressions of energy, here, the spareness
(quantity-limit) of mass is important. The last two calculations of
kinetic and thermal energy also seem to express otherness in their
calculations of force embodied mathematically in the difference on one
hand of displacement, and on the other hand in the difference in
>From temperature we calculate/infer the internal being-energy and from
heat we calculate/infer the thermal energy-becoming in flow, doing work.
Could we say that doing work is about converting energy from one form to
There is the force embodied in the expression of "energy" doing work. And
there also is the force that drives the conversion of one form of energy
to another I think I read you once say. Which points us to Entropy S,
Which brings me to Faraday's observation (close to equilibrium, I assume):
Qin/Tin = Qout/Tout; where Q is Heat and T is temperature.
In this calculation, change in entropy S is calculated in terms of a
reversible heat flow divided by absolute temperature, Q/T. The result will
be in units Joules/Kelvin. Energy-becoming flows in Joules calculations.
Energy-beings embodied in Kelvin temperature measurements. ??Yes?
We know that the calculation entropy always increases when energy changes
form. How do we know that it drives the conversion? Or do we just know
that conversions happen, and force, work, energy, and entropy are all
I am thinking of entropy, now, as like a universal gradient down which we
all fall, driving change, except that for living systems we increase the
gradient of our surroundings in order to decrease, temporarily, our own
Say, At, this is non sequiter to the above, but when you write
/_\F(sy) < /_\W(sy/su)
Are you saying about delta W that it happens both in the system sy and the
surroundings su? Are you implying about work mathematically, W(sy) x W
(1/su)? I guess I think not.
Enough for now. I have to go to "work." <G> Thanks At!!
BTW, I have read most of the papers at http://www.dieoff.com . There are
other less graphic, more sober, web sites with similar observations
regarding the relationships of demographics, fossil fuel dependencies,
'western' embodiments of capitalism, etc. The dieoff.com site does induce
entropy production, though, I've noticed. ...grin...
On fossil fuels, among other things, I have been reading the speeches of
Matthew Simmons, CEO of Simmons & Co., International, and Bush advisor at
http://www.simmonsco-intl.com for a couple years. I chuckle, wryly, with
each new speech, because I realize that he realizes saying anything
resonant with fossil fuel observations at dieoff.com would ruin his
credibility in the corporate world. (Basically, it seems to me, doomer
messages are unspeakable in our establishment world. Certainly, there are
a plethora of doomer messages out there that lack credibility.) Anyway, it
has been interesting to watch him struggle to balance soberness with alarm
with each speech, each time drawing a different part of our fossil fuel
energy dependencies picture. The speeches are archived on the Simmons'
site if anyone is curious. He came out with another one two days ago.
"Heidi and Dan Chay" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.