No. You can derive any kind of nonsense you like from physics. That doesn't make your derivation physics.
When you're talking about prices, that ain't physics.
Oil Depletion and the Second Law of Thermodynamics: THE ETP MODEL
- Thread starter Futilitist
- Start date
- Status
When you're talking about prices, that ain't physics.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
I went ahead and asked the Etp model's creator, B.W. Hill, the same questions that you asked me earlier. Here is some of what he had to say:
"The Etp Model is derived numerically from the Second Law Statement the "Entropy Rate Balance Equation for Control Volumes". The equation can be found on page 226 in Moran, and Shapiro, "Fundamentals of Engineering Thermodynamics" ISBN 0-471-89576-8. It can also be found in almost any text on engineering thermodynamics.
Anyone who claims to be chemist, and is not familiar with the equation is a fraud, or a liar. It is one of the most widely known, and used equations in thermodynamics. Chances are you have hooked yourself a real live troll masquerading as a person of science.
This guy is obviously trolling...He is playing with boundary conditions that he doesn't understand, and ignoring the use of control volumes...he doesn't know Reservoir Engineering any more than he knows thermodynamics."
~B.W. Hill
I just thought I would share that with you.
---Futilitist
I'm quite content for readers to judge my scientific reputation on the overall quality of the my posts. Just as I judge you on the quality of yours.
Sounds like he engages in the same kind of ad-hominem attacks you do. You two should get along quite well.
[previous post]
No. If you or he wants to convince anyone of anything, he has to provide it for free. What he's doing is classic hucksterism. Real science is done via publishing peer reviewed research, not enticing people to buy a book.Futilitist said:
That said, "derived numerically" sounds bad. That's not a mathematical derivation - which is all equations - it sounds like a data manipulation. It also apparently means there is no actual equation.
Either way:
1. This thread is in the wrong section because clearly this is supposedly a new/non-mainstream theory, not an accepted/existing theory. It should be in the "alternate theories" section.
2. Without actually posting the equation, there is no physics here to discuss.
3. The rest of the supposed response form B.W. Hill is off-the-rails crazy. It doesn't respond to anything anyone in here said. Either you made some false claims and attributed them to us or the guy is a crazy crackpot -- or both. Either way, we can't have a discussion by proxy and there was no content in that quote to discuss anywy.
Last edited:
Hi Russ.
http://sciforums.com/threads/apocalypse-soon.133084/page-83#post-3292683
denial
(dĭ-ni´il) in psychiatry, a primitive–ego defense–mechanism in which emotional conflict and anxiety are avoided by refusing to acknowledge
painful realities that are consciously intolerable.
hard core
(härd kôr) 1. Having an extreme dedication to a certain activity; diehard.
Hard core peak oil denial is not exactly considered to be a very scientific position (whether you understand that or not). So, since you are a self-admitted, hard core peak oil denier, why should anyone here listen to you?
---Futilitist
You recently made this confession on the "Apocalypse Soon" thread:
http://sciforums.com/threads/apocalypse-soon.133084/page-83#post-3292683
Futilitist said:
Russ_Watters said:
denial
(dĭ-ni´il) in psychiatry, a primitive–ego defense–mechanism in which emotional conflict and anxiety are avoided by refusing to acknowledge
painful realities that are consciously intolerable.
hard core
(härd kôr) 1. Having an extreme dedication to a certain activity; diehard.
Hard core peak oil denial is not exactly considered to be a very scientific position (whether you understand that or not).
So, since you are a self-admitted, hard core peak oil denier, why should anyone here listen to you?---Futilitist
Last edited:
Also, simply: "assertion that an allegation is false"
I am willing to call my self a "denier" in this case - and a hard-core one, because I put a lot of effort into asserting/showing that your allegations are false.
You are trying to play word-games instead of engaging in scientific discussion in a thread that you claimed was dedicated to scientific discussion. You're trolling your own thread!
This is your thread, not mine, Futilitist: you are on trial here, not me. Your choices are:Hard core peak oil denial is not exactly considered to be a very scientific position (whether you understand that or not).
1. Try to prove your claim.
2. Don't try to prove your claim.
You are currently choosing #2. As a result, no one is going to accept your claim. If that's not really of concern to you, so be it. However, to directly answer your question: people should listen to me (and do) because I'm an energy engineer and I make quality posts on this subject. And besides: you're a hard-core Peak Oil crackpot and I still attempt to make quality responses to you. Regardless of what you believe about the others in the thread, it does not relieve you of your responsibility to make quality posts/arguments.
Last edited:
If top dog mod JamesR has seen this thread, he must deem there's some merit to it, why else would James leave this thread in "Physics and Math"?
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
The basic fault that makes this all nonsense is attempting to jump from the thermodynamics of reservoir extraction, which of course exists and is physics (or chemical engineering), to a model predicting the market price of a freely traded, global commodity, which competes with numerous - and constantly evolving - other energy sources and is subject to geopolitical influence.
This seems to come from some E&P oil techie whose vision is apparently so narrow he has managed to remain totally ignorant of basic economics.
It's quite bonkers in its basic conception and so it is futile (haha) to waste time looking at any of the maths, whatever it may be.
Your comment, above, is not a rebuttal of the physics used in the creation of the Etp model. It is, instead, a knee jerk declaration of a stupid economic argument -- that no prices can ever be predicted. But that is simply not true. The Etp model tracks the price history of oil (yearly average) with almost 100% accuracy.
1) Oil is not same as most freely traded, global commodities. It is the keystone resource that makes it possible to acquire all other resources.
2) The life cycle of oil production is a process, and is subject to the laws of thermodynamics.
3) The end consumers of oil must pay the full cost of oil production.
Numbers 2 and 3, above, are the reason it is possible to predict the yearly average oil price with such startling accuracy.
Please take the time to read and understand the materials I provided. The methodology used to create the Etp model is very logical and straight forward. Once you actually understand it, then attempt to rebut it.
You sound like an execomomist, not an exchemist!
The Etp model is not "bonkers in it's basic conception". You just don't seem to understand it's basic conception. You are correct that it is a waste of time to look at the maths when you don't even understand the basic concepts.
Your arguments from personal astonishment are not valid.
---Futilitist
Last edited:
Since you haven't seen the methodology used to create the ETP model, you have no basis for that claim.
Please take the time to read and understand the materials I provided. The methodology used to create the Etp model is very logical and straight forward. Once you actually understand it, then attempt to rebut it.
---Futilitist
I did read it. But you even said that you are thinking about buying the book so you can see the derivation, because as of yet you haven't.
And I'd still like to know how you can argue for years that a supply crunch would cause prices to skyrocket and cause the destruction of civilization, then flip-flop to saying that a supply glut and resulting price drop would also cause the destruction of civilization. Pretty dumb flip-flop.
It just looks that way to you, Russ. You did not understand the argument back then. And you still don't.
Back then, I said that high oil prices would soon cause of the collapse of industrial civilization. I was right. They did. Low oil prices are not the cause of the collapse. They are a symptom of the ongoing collapse that began in June of 2014. They are evidence that we are now in collapse.
We can discuss this further on the "Apocalypse Soon" thread if you want. This thread is for the Etp model. Thanks.
---Futilitist
I've had premonitions myself.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
I've had premonitions myself.
My sentiments exactly.
Congratulations! It seems you two birds of a feather are finally getting it.
---Futilitist
---Futilitist
Um, what? I'm still alive and so are you. Civilization most certainly did not collapse.
Lol, pretty boring collapse! Most people's definition of "collapse" does not include a rising GDP. And if I remember correctly, yours didn't either...
Doesn't really matter; since you don't have access to the ETP model, we can't really discuss it until you gain access.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Looks as if you've got him on the run. Now he's having to redefine "collapse", in order to claim it has (invisibly?) occurred, i.e. in spite of the fact that standards of living and health are rising, crime is down, and nobody you or I know thinks anything remarkable has taken place. What a joke.
Is that "upward collapse" anything like an "advance to the rear"?
- Status