Re: Lizard engines and rat engines


"Tim Tyler" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:dbe395$cvk$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Perplexed in Peoria <jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote or quoted:
> > "Tim Tyler" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message :
> > > Perplexed in Peoria <jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote or quoted:
> > > > "Inman Harvey" <inmanh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message:
>
> > > > > ... The Maximum Entropy Production principle [MEP]
> > > > > [NB: perfectly in accordance with Prigogine's 'law
> > > > > of minimum entropy production' -- the scenarios
> > > > > and boundary conditions are different] ...
>
> [Minimum entropy and maximum entropy - conflict?]
>
> > > However in this case, the issue is probably not too significant:
> > > the maximum entropy guys are mostly saying that their schemes
> > > are significant far from equilibrium - where there's a chance of
> > > self-organising systems forming on the available energy gradients.
> > >
> > > By contrast, Prigogine's idea applies under just the opposite set of
> > > circumstances - when the system is near to equilibrium - so perhaps
> > > there's not much chance of a conflict of maximands.
>
> > True, but if you are doing a finite element analysis, you
> > are going to be close to equilibrium locally at all
> > elements, and only far from equilibrium globally.
>
> Like Inman Harvey said, "the scenarios and boundary
> conditions are different".
>
> On the one hand, you have self-organising systems feeding
> off an energy gradient large enough to sustain them
> seek ways to dissipate energy as fast as possible.
>
> On the other hand you have the idea that systems near
> equilibrium evolve to a steady state that minimises
> the rate of enegry dissipation.
>
> Why don't these ideas conflict? Since the circumstances
> circumstances under which they apply appear to be pretty
> mutually exclusive, I don't really see the problem.

I don't see a problem either. You, I, Inman Harvey, and Roderick
Dewar seem to be in agreement that there is no problem. I don't
completely understand WHY there isn't a problem, but based upon
what Dewar wrote, I jumped to the conclusion that this is a
minimax issue - it minimizes over one domain of variation and
maximizes over another. I doubt that you completely understand
WHY there isn't a problem either, but based on what Inman Harvey
wrote, you jumped to the conclusion that this is a question of
environment - it minimizes in some environments and maximizes
in other environments.

My current lack of understanding of this question is so great that
I am not even sure whether you and I are saying different things.
Why don't we let this issue lie until we both understand Dewar's
papers better?


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Eric Gisse doesnt know the basics of Relativity
    ... doesn't understand now as evidenced by his latest little temper ... posts saying how stupid I am and whatever. ... is not in equilibrium in another. ... Consider an ideal gas in a box at equilibrium in its rest frame. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Eric Gisse doesnt know the basics of Relativity
    ... Rest Mass is a Lorentz invariant scalar. ... Based on a quick search of arXiv, this seems to be an unsettled area of physics, with some saying ... I further suspect that this is because a system in equilibrium in one frame is not in equilibrium in another. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Bell Curve.
    ... Bill Morse wrote: ... is different in different environments. ... his arguments until I know what he is saying. ... Nature *via* nurture - and all that. ...
    (talk.origins)