User talk:John courtneidge/Gibbs free energy

Gibbs free energy

Dear Sadi, I hope that you look at my additions - somewhat tentative - at Gibbs Free Energy. Through the John Avery and Entropy and life pages, I have e-mailed to JohnAvery and would be happy to share that message with you - john at courtneidgeassociates.com. Best, john (courtneidge) - 19:36, 23 December 2006 User:John courtneidge

Yes, John I see, from you recent contributions, that you have interest in Gibbs free energy as it relates to wealth and would like to add material in this direction to the Gibbs free energy article. I would be glad to work on this with you however Wikipedia has many rules (not my own) that have to be followed to get material into articles in the correct manner. It takes at least a half a year to get used to how things work around here. First, I would strongly suggest that you get a free Wikipedia account. (Please use your user account to sign out on talk pages using four tildes). This way we can use a functional talk page to discuss your article proposals. Your recent contribution will no doubt get reverted by another user fairly soon for a number of reasons, namely we can’t use unsubstantiated theories (every sentence has to be established knowledge); so I will move it here; so we can discuss your contribution, references and ideas. I like this topic, and will be glad to work on it with you, we just can’t put in our own ideas and theories. --Sadi Carnot 20:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sadi, I'm not quite sure what all this means - but at least it helps (I think) move this matter along - one that is dear to my heart, and one that has taken me a good deal of time (and courage) to get underway. Please tell me more specificly where and how we can continue this discussion - I see this matter as essential for the well-being of all. Regards: --User:John courtneidge (Talk | contribs) 21:20, 23 December 2006

John, first (because Wikipedia has space limitations), format your comments into paragraphs, like have re-done above. Second, when you are done commenting "click" the button that looks like a signature (in the row of 21 buttons that appears when you edit pages). Third, your contribution, after it's cleaned up and any original suppositions are taken out, would probably go better at thermoeconomics or biophysical economics. --Sadi Carnot 21:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

First, let's start with the wealth / Gibbs free energy correlation, i.e. who is the author of this supposition? As a similar example, you might like this short article --Sadi Carnot 21:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, ha! You cut right to the chase! I have not got any other citation other than its inclusion in essays that have been up-loaded (for me) for some time at InterestFreeMoney.org and, as such, this formulation might well be 'novel research' and, as such, not appropriate for a Wikipedia entry!

But, perhaps, this is not a novel formulation (of the generalizations?) that others have made (Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, Frederick Soddy, Jeremy Rifkin, etc?) - the reason why this Wikipedia project is so important!

Part of my courage has been to try to put this sort of matter up, in the hope that other folks would know better than I - the lovely link that you have provided being one such. For more, see my addition at the thread 'Questions', below. John courtneidge 20:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, for you to note, I think it is very interesting that you believe there to be a correlation between wealth and Gibbs free energy, but the only way you can include this in Wikipedia is if it has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or in book form. I have Georgescu-Roegen’s book and he mentions Gibbs four times, very tersely, but only in reference to his 1901 statistical mechanics book. As for Soddy, I have read his ideas written and referenced in other works, but I don’t have his book (it’s too expensive: $99). If you have is book and would quote some of his ideas about wealth and Gibbs free energy below (if he has them) that would be nice. As for Rifkin, I ordered his book today but from what I have heard, he has a very poor understanding of thermodynamics, and is not respected by the scientific community.

As for the correlation between wealth and Gibbs free energy, the mechanism behind the correlation is very simple. Each human is molecular system. Collections of interactive humans are larger molecular systems. Molecular systems evolve or behave according to the following atomic-molecular evolution principle:

Date	Person	Version
1913	Niels Bohr	In any molecular system consisting of positive nuclei and electrons in which the nuclei are at rest relative to each other and the electrons in circular orbits, the angular momentum or every electron round the centre of its orbit will be in the permanent state of the system equal to h / 2π, where h is Planck’s constant, and we shall assume that a configuration satisfying this condition is stable if the total energy of the system is less than in any neighboring configuration satisfying the same condition of the angular momentum of the electrons.
1952	Charles Coulson	Two atoms form a molecule because there is a lowering of the total energy when they come together.
1960	Linus Pauling	The configuration for the normal state of any molecule is that corresponding to the minimum value of the energy function, i.e. the electronic energy of the molecule as a function nuclear configuration, which corresponds to the motion of the electrons in the fields of the atomic nuclei, a minimum which thus gives the molecule a maximum stability.
2002	Britannica	When atoms approach one another, their nuclei and electrons interact and tend to distribute themselves in space in such a way that the total energy is lower than it would be in any alternative arrangement. If the total energy of a group of atoms is lower than the sum of the energies of the component atoms, then they bond together and the energy lowering is the bonding energy.
2005	Mark Winter	The geometry that will be adopted by a molecule will be that in which the total energy for all the electrons in that molecule is a minimum.

In short, the valence electrons of any molecular system will tend to evolve in such a manner so as to achieve the configuration of maximum stability. In human systems, sensory system valence electrons are primary electrons involved in the dynamics of the process. Thus, the accumulation of wealth is one way to achieve stability. Another example is doing volunteer work, e.g. Mother Teresa. The Gibbs free energy is simply a measure of the chemical work involved in each of these processes. According to the combined law of thermodynamics, another way of stating this evolution process, for constant temperature, constant pressure, systems, such as earth, is that each system will tend to configure or evolve in such a manner so as to minimize its Gibbs free energy. I hope this helps. --Sadi Carnot 00:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions

I also like the subject. For you, however, why is this subject, as you say, "dear to your heart"? --Sadi Carnot 21:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Now (and I've found the insert facility using the colon, too!), my most central core value is (what I'm currently choosing to call) 'an ethic of peace and nonviolence': which I try to describe as 'the minimization of harm and the maximization of well-being'. With that premise, I feel sure that the many, quite soundly-based, findings of modern chemistry (including those of chemical thermodynamics) can help nurture that ethic as a lived reality for humans - in the specific of my efforts to 'help create a fair, safe and peaceful world'. And, hence, the closeness of this subject to my heart! John courtneidge 20:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, having a peaceful world is a nice goal; however, for chemical evolution to occur, structural bonds have to break, e.g. as in cultural revolutions, and this is typically a violent process, as history has repetitively shown. What I want to know is, where are you coming up with these ideas in the first place? That is, chemical thermodynamics and Gibbs free energy are very elite and difficult subjects to master, thus where are you getting the seeds for your ideas? What degrees do you have? I’m just curious. Talk later: --Sadi Carnot 00:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll read your comment at Discussion and then reply to that later, while replying to this extension of 'Questions' is probably quicker.

In reverse order of your questions: my first degree was from the University of Bristol (1969-72) in chemistry, and, after school teaching for six yeras, I took a PhD in 1978 (Awarded in 1982) at University College London in chemistry (thesis title: 'On the synthesis of organic peroxides' - a combination of synthetic methods for organic peroxides, along with mechanistic physical organic chemistry of organic free radicals). This was follwed by post-doctoral research and teaching at UCL Department of Chemistry, research for the Malaysian Rubber Producers Association (in England), and for the National Research Council of Canada (in Ottawa). Though I've(sadly) been unable to pracice as a chemist for the past twelve years, I still think of myself as a non-mathematical physical organic chemist with a specific interest in the mechanistic chemistry of neutral and chanrged free radicals and radical ions.

I could send anyone who is interested a CV, and, also, a Thematic Map that shows my interests, work, and other self-descriptors (the Thematic Map for myself is a Venn diagram of three intersecting circles concerning science, religion and economics) and it is from that, that this involvement with chemical thermodynamics flows.

I agree that chemical changes involve bond breaking and making - and that energies of activation usually are inter-posed between starting condition and product condition. However, those barriers to change can be modified or circumvented (by catalysts, for example - and ? quantum-mechanical tunnelling - though I don't know whatthis latter proces is all about) - my hope is that helping people (generally) to an understanding of the present-state of knowledge concerning chemical change and the central role of Gibbs Free Energy in that (apart from their intrinsic beauty) might help the nonviolent approaches to cultural change occur.

So, your comment about violence in cultural change being 'typically' violent has that nice qualifier 'typically'. If you like, the very fact of this Wiki-medium style of discussion (a typically nonviolent co-exploration - the 'co-creation of understanding' as contrasted to the alternative coercive 'auto-declaraation of truth', perhaps?) shows that the ethic of peace and nonviolence (minimisation of harm + maximisation of well-being) is possible.

I hope that helped! Thanks again for your help and questions. John courtneidge 20:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

John, two chemistry degrees is excellent, I had assumed that you were just an avid science reader. Thus, knowing that you have two degrees in chemistry, if you are interested, I would be glad to email you the first six chapters on a new, soon-to-be published, book on human chemistry to review and give critical feedback before it goes to press. The articles interpersonal chemistry and human bonding, which I wrote, are similar to how the book will be; only the book will be far more advanced crouched in the historical roots of chemical thermodynamics. The book is laying out the basics or founding pieces of a chemical thermodynamic, Gibbs free energy, perspective of human life. Thus far authors Georgi Gladyshev, John Avery, and Jing Chen (three degrees in mathematics), author of the 2005 book the Physical Foundations of Economics – an Analytical Thermodynamic Theory, as well as a couple of chemical engineering associates of mine have read these first chapters, or have them presently, and it has received great praise by all of these reviewers. The first book on Human Chemistry was written in 1914 by William Fairburn, this will be the second. It will likely evolve into a textbook in the years to come. Hence, your help on this project would be appreciated.

Later on, you may also like publish an article about your Gibbs free energy / wealth theories in the Journal of Human Thermodynamics. I’m still curious where you came up with the idea that Gibbs free energy has a correlation to wealth? Talk soon: --Sadi Carnot 22:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sadi, thanks for the offer - my e-address is john at courtneidgeassociates dot com

By return I'll share the essay in which this 'wealth' word equation has been shared around the net for some time - and which I've used for various talks that I've given - the content hasn't (I think) been shared on a web-site, nor in a peer-reviewed journal (nor, I think, printed for publication).

That essay will explain, to some degree, my interest in this wealth-creation matter - and with the distribution of that wealth, once created - the present (unequal) distribution, of which, causes all sorts of problems - more on that anon.

As to how these matters came to be written, I adopted an 'ab initio' approach to the human sciences when I returned to England from Ottawa in 1994, because of my efforts to understand the world's then state and to make my contribution (small and large political, p), to helping create a better world than the one that I observed (and was a part of), then.

Those efforts resulted in a series of writings which could/should? be published - and which, as a Word doc, I could e-share with you.

BTW - I've quickly scanned the human thermodynamics web-site - most interesting! That work might, perhaps, evolve in a 'wider-than-human-centric direction' as time allows? But, again, more on that evevtually. And also BTW: the afterword by N G-R in Rifkin's book also helps point the way to 'that wealth equation' - but, as so often with these things (eg the 'Complexity' etc books, Santa Fe Institute, etc) the physicists haven't got an 'immediately to their hands' grasp of Gibbs' two relevant equations, so what I'm/we're talking about here, again, might well be 'novel research'??! Hey, ho!

I hope this, too, advances matters somewhat. Best john John courtneidge 23:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, we both seem to have a common interest, i.e. understanding life from a chemical point of view. As soon as I receive Rifkin's book, I'll check out the afterword. And yes, complexity books and the Santa Fe Institute are a bit too reliant on computer simulations than actual reality. Thanks for the offer to help with the book (this way you'll see my point of view). I'll email you the first two sections of the book shortly, and then the others in following. Some emails can only except small file sizes at a time; thus I have been sending them out two parts (chapters) at a time. Email me back when you receive this first part and send me your paper to read. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 02:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments from July

(Here's some old comments I wrote back in July about your idea)

Most books generally, however, focus on entropy simply because it is easy to think in terms of organization and disorganization. The Gibbs free energy, of course, is the main term, i.e. G = H – TS; Gibbs free energy is just more difficult to conceptualize. Regarding your equation, wealth is related to low entropy (this is correct), but raw materials can be simply thought of catalysts or substrate material used to facilitate human chemical reactions, i.e. people reacting with each other over the course of evolutionary time scales and yielding useful work output, i.e. Gibbs free energy, in the process. Energy gone to waste or unusable, in this process, can be though of as the entropy energy. Lastly, the total change in energy, in any human system, over the course an evolutionary window, can be though of as the enthalpy energy which derives from human bonding rearrangements, i.e. bond energy changes; for example, a marriage is a bonding process in which energy the form of work is released.

First have to remember that the Gibbs free energy equation is simply the Combined law of thermodynamics and second it is based on the model in which heat is released when, during a combustion reaction, hydrocarbon "molecules" electromagnetically-react with oxygen "molecules"; as for example the propane combustion reaction shown below:

C₃H₈ + 5O₂ → 3CO₂ + 4H₂O

According to the second law of thermodynamics, this heat energy moves from hot (the boiler) to cold (the condenser), yet there is a tendency towards dissipation. Some of the energy in this reaction is purposely used to push a piston, i.e. to do work, the rest is lost. The science of thermodynamics is modeled on this process. In this reaction, to point out what is occurring, in essence, first the lives of two separately unique (2-element) molecules kinetically run into each other, i.e. they are pulled uncontrollably towards each other, in the ‘initial state’, then swap atomic material (H and O) in the 'transition state', so to emerge transformed in the ‘final state’ as two new entities, i.e. two separately unique (2-element) molecules newly formed. This reaction is invariably of the form:

A + B → C + D

Thus in evolution, a male species A reacts with a female species B, they swap DNA or atomic material, and then emerge as a bonded unit C with a semi-attached offspring D as product. The work output over the course of the relationship is the change in the Gibbs free energy. I hope this helps. Adios:--Sadi Carnot 06:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)