Author Topic: quentron.com (Read 1277740 times)

gravityblock · « **Reply #2820 on:** July 13, 2014, 07:18:50 AM »

Quote from: MarkE on July 13, 2014, 02:20:27 AM

LOL! Does the entropy not increase with time?

Reference:

1.) Negative Absolute Temperature - Negative absolute temperatures (or negative Kelvin temperatures) are hotter than all positive temperatures, even hotter than infinite temperature. Please note, they are using the text book definition of temperature (First snapshot below).

2.) Negative Absolute Temperature for Motional Degrees of Freedom - An ensemble at positive temperature is described by an occupation distribution that decreases exponentially with energy. If we were to extend this formula to negative absolute temperatures, exponentially increasing distributions would result. However, the energy can be increased even further if high energy states are more populated than low-energy ones. In this regime, the entropy decreases with energy, which, according to the thermodynamic definition of temperature results in negative temperatures. The temperature is discontinuous at maximum entropy, jumping from positive to negative infinity. This is a consequence of the historic definition of temperature (Second & Third snapshot below).

Entropy is the Ultimate Order!

Gravock

MarkE · « **Reply #2821 on:** July 13, 2014, 09:03:24 PM »

You are completely out of context.

gravityblock · « **Reply #2822 on:** July 13, 2014, 09:59:51 PM »

Quote from: MarkE on July 13, 2014, 09:03:24 PM

You are completely out of context.

Temperature is defined via entropy, so there's nothing to be taken out of context as you wrongly asserted with no explanation by you whatsoever. Entropy is a measure of disorder in the system. It is related to the number of energy states that are occupied by the particles: If only one energy state is occupied, as for example the lowest energy state in the case of a temperature of zero Kelvin, the system is very ordered and the entropy is zero. If the particles are however distributed over many energy states, low energy and high energy, the system is very disordered and the entropy is large. Snapshot below showing how entropy defines temperature.

Gravock

MarkE · « **Reply #2823 on:** July 13, 2014, 11:13:09 PM »

LOL, you commit the converse fallacy: A is a member of B, therefore anything that is a member of B is therefore A. Do whatever you can to put negative temperatures in the context of Profitis' electrochemical process.

gravityblock · « **Reply #2824 on:** July 14, 2014, 02:57:33 AM »

Quote from: MarkE on July 13, 2014, 11:13:09 PM

LOL, you commit the converse fallacy: A is a member of B, therefore anything that is a member of B is therefore A. Do whatever you can to put negative temperatures in the context of Profitis' electrochemical process.

It is you who is committing the converse fallacy, and not me! This is another psychological projection of yourself, which we are so familiar with. My reply was in response to your question of "Does the entropy not increase with time?" I even quoted your question in my reply, so this is another intentional misdirection by you. Your question had nothing to do with Profitis' electrochemical process itself, but had everything to do with entropy in general. Now, you're trying to put a totally different context and meaning to my posts by mixing negative temperatures (temperature entropy) to Profitis' electrochemical process (electrochemical entropy). My reply was to show how entropy is the 'ultimate order'! Since entropy is the ultimate order, and electrochemical entropy has precedence over temperature entropy, then Profitis's electrochemical process should stand on it's own under the right conditions.

Gravock

MarkE · « **Reply #2825 on:** July 14, 2014, 03:13:44 AM »

Troll, troll, troll down the stream you go. "the entropy", as in the entropy in his electrochemical reaction.

gravityblock · « **Reply #2826 on:** July 14, 2014, 04:35:08 AM »

Quote from: MarkE on July 14, 2014, 03:13:44 AM

Troll, troll, troll down the stream you go. "the entropy", as in the entropy in his electrochemical reaction.

It is you who is trolling and not me. Another psychological projection of yourself. You are mixing "the entropy" as found in your first question of your post with the second question, which is in reference to the net direction of a chemical reaction. I never quoted your second question in my post, and for a very good reason!

Below is your original post which I previously replied to. Please note how I only quoted the bold portion in my reply to you, which is more related to entropy in general and not to Profitis' electrochemical process. The second question, which was not quoted in my reply to you, "Does not a chemical reaction proceed net in one direction: feed stock to result?", is more specific to Profitis' electrochemical process. The reason why I didn't quote your entire post, was to avoid any confusion. However, we all know how you like to muddy the waters.

Quote from: MarkE on July 13, 2014, 02:20:27 AM

LOL! Does the entropy not increase with time? Does not a chemical reaction proceed net in one direction: feed stock to result?

Now, to answer the second question, a chemical reaction does not always proceed net in one direction. Both reversible and irreversible reactions are prevalent in nature. French chemist Claude Louis Berthollet introduced the concept of reversible reactions in 1803. In reversible reactions, the reactants and products are never fully consumed; they are each constantly reacting and being produced. This is the same thing which Profitis has been saying for his electrochemical process! Unlike irreversible reactions, reversible reactions lead to equilibrium: in reversible reactions, the reaction proceeds in both directions whereas in irreversible reactions the reaction proceeds in only one direction. If the reactants are formed at the same rate as the products, a dynamic equilibrium exists. For example, if a water tank is being filled with water at the same rate as water is leaving the tank (through a hypothetical hole), the amount of water remaining in the tank remains consistent.

Reference: Reversible vs. Irreversible Reactions (see snapshots below for a quick reference)

Gravock

MarkE · « **Reply #2827 on:** July 14, 2014, 04:45:40 AM »

You are so confused.

gravityblock · « **Reply #2828 on:** July 14, 2014, 04:57:20 AM »

Quote from: MarkE on July 14, 2014, 04:45:40 AM

You are so confused.

It is you who is the author of confusion, and I do not subscribe to your nonsense!

Does all chemical reactions proceed net in only one direction? It's a simple yes and no answer, and I have already provided you with the answer in my previous post! Answer the simple question, and we'll let the reader decide who is the confused one!

Gravock

MarkE · « **Reply #2829 on:** July 14, 2014, 05:05:07 AM »

Quote from: gravityblock on July 14, 2014, 04:57:20 AM

It is you who is the author of confusion, and I do not subscribe to your nonsense!

Does all chemical reactions proceed net in only one direction? It's a simple yes and no answer, and I have already provided you with the answer in my previous post! Answer the simple question, and we'll let the reader decide who is the confused one!

Gravock

Of course you subscribe to lots of nonsense. You thrive on it.

gravityblock · « **Reply #2830 on:** July 14, 2014, 05:35:47 AM »

Quote from: MarkE on July 14, 2014, 05:05:07 AM

Of course you subscribe to lots of nonsense. You thrive on it.

I thrive on the Truth, and the Truth may appear to be nonsense to you because you don't have all of the information and/or have the wrong information. You're not able to answer your own question, LOL!

One last time, so the reader can make their decision on who is the confused one. Does a reversible chemical reaction proceed in both directions?

Gravock

MarkE · « **Reply #2831 on:** July 14, 2014, 05:52:55 AM »

Quote from: gravityblock on July 14, 2014, 05:35:47 AM

I thrive on the Truth, and the Truth may appear to be nonsense to you because you don't have all of the information and/or have the wrong information. You're not able to answer your own question, LOL!

One last time, so the reader can make their decision on who is the confused one. Does a reversible chemical reaction proceed in both directions?

Gravock

LOL! A review of your posts says otherwise.

gravityblock · « **Reply #2832 on:** July 14, 2014, 06:02:43 AM »

MarkE,

Does a reversible chemical reaction proceed in both directions?

Gravock

MarkE · « **Reply #2833 on:** July 14, 2014, 07:24:38 AM »

Trolling, trolling, trolling down the stream we go. Do you think trolling is better when you shout? Do you think that a chemical reaction that has gone forward to equilibrium goes backwards from whence it came without external energy?

gravityblock · « **Reply #2834 on:** July 14, 2014, 09:15:54 AM »

Quote from: MarkE on July 14, 2014, 07:24:38 AM

Trolling, trolling, trolling down the stream we go. Do you think trolling is better when you shout? Do you think that a chemical reaction that has gone forward to equilibrium goes backwards from whence it came without external energy?

If I want to shout, then I will use all capital letters. Yes, a reaction still continues in a reversible chemical reaction that is in dynamic equilibrium. The word dynamic shows that the reaction is still continuing. As fast as something is being removed, it is being replaced again by the reverse reaction. This is called the position of dynamic equilibrium. At equilibrium, the quantities of everything present in the mixture remain constant, although the reactions are still continuing. This is because the rates of the forward and the back reactions are equal. If you change the conditions in a way which changes the relative rates of the forward and back reactions you will change the position of equilibrium (for example, changing the proportions of the various substances present in the equilibrium mixture).

Reference: Explaining Chemical Equilibria (snapshots provided below for a quick reference).

Gravock

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: quentron.com (Read 1277740 times)

gravityblock

Re: quentron.com

MarkE

Re: quentron.com

gravityblock

Re: quentron.com

MarkE

Re: quentron.com

gravityblock

Re: quentron.com

MarkE

Re: quentron.com

gravityblock

Re: quentron.com

MarkE

Re: quentron.com

gravityblock

Re: quentron.com

MarkE

Re: quentron.com

gravityblock

Re: quentron.com

MarkE

Re: quentron.com

gravityblock

Re: quentron.com

MarkE

Re: quentron.com

gravityblock

Re: quentron.com