Talk:Non-equilibrium thermodynamics

message: I noticed that there was a discrepancy between the title of the article — spelt "Non-equilibrium thermodynamics" — and the spelling of the category, which was spelt "Nonequilibrium thermodynamics".
I decided this was worth resolving.  IMO the spelling with the hyphen is more clear so I decided to go with that one, and I have done the following:
*All sub-categories and articles in the category of :Category:Nonequilibrium thermodynamics have been changed so they now belong to :Category:Non-equilibrium thermodynamics.
*:Category:Nonequilibrium thermodynamics has had all its categories removed (so it will not show up any more as one descends the hierarchy of categories); the page has been replaced with a redirect to :Category:Non-equilibrium thermodynamics.
I did this by hand, a pain in the ass, so if anybody knows of a method to quickly make such changes in future, do let me know.  Not that I'm planning on doing such things on a regular basis. :-)
Feel free to flame, abuse and otherwise censure me if you feel what I've done was out of line.
I would suggest that we put :Category:Nonequilibrium thermodynamics up for deletion but thought I'd leave it as a redirect for now in case anyone really, really wants it back.
Best wishes, — WebDrake 18:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepancy between spelling of article and category title resolved 

message: The Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction is no more an example of a non-equilibrium chemical system than any other reaction. All reactions start at a non-equilibrium state and move to equilibrium as entropy is produced.
While most relatively simple reactions describe a monotonous concentration = f(time) path to equilibrium, the Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction belongs to a kind of reactions that have autocatalytic steps, which makes some intermediate components concentrations oscillate as the reaction proceeds to equilibrium. The oscillations are damped until, at equilibrium, they disappear and all concentrations become stationary.
The introduction to the article states correctly that non-equilibrium systems are abundant and all-around us. Systems like a hurricane, a working combustion engine, a ping-pong ball suspended in an air jet, a flying aeroplane or a living cell are all examples of non-equilibrium systems.
All the best,
Pilha de Areia (talk) 10:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example of non-equilibrium system 

message: Could equilibrium thermodynamics be generally characterised as lacking the accuracy of non-equilibrium thermodynamics ?
(or, to put it another way, Thermodynamics lacks the precision required for understanding many physical systems  ??)
if so, should the article make some mention of this situation. so that the lay reader would be less confused by the distinctions equilibrium and non-equilibrium and hopefully see that Thermodynamics often produces results lacking accuracy. 79.76.136.100 (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Lacking accuracy

message: The name for these sections had been THE Principle of Maximum Rate of Entropy Production and Principle of Minimum Rate of Entropy Production.... There is no "THE: Principle of...Maximum...there are historical several authors who have put out theories or postulates about maxium entropy production with different names and which are not equivalent, Swenson, for example put out a "Principle of Maximum Entropy Production" in 1988 and the stated what he called "The Law of Maximum Entropy Production" beginning in 1989 (of which there is a separate Wikipedia article). Dewar recently put out a principle of maxiium entropy production which has been shown to be invalid but it was a different principle. So this section which should touch on all these should not be named "THE". I furnished the basic details on these. Regaarding the title of the next section, there is a name for a principle here but it is not as given previously it is as it appears now the "Theorem of Minimum Entropy Production" and belongs to Prigogine to whom it is attirbuted now in the title. I've fleshed in the details of that theorem and shown the relatnon to the previous section. This was done partly following the contribution of a previous editor who had referred people to the Wiki article on the Law of Maximum Entropy Production where he correctly noted there was a better discussion of Prigogine's theorem. But this page is where this should clearly also be because this whole page is the more general page which should cover all these things. The Law of Maximum Entropy Production page is a more specific page which is about that specific law due to Swenson. That page, which is certainly an important page,  is really a detail of the larger area of study of nonequilibrium thermodynamics, so if anything discussions of other principles than Swenson's Law of Maximum Entropy Production should be referred here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DrProbability (talk • contribs) 23:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That comment "The name for these sections... should be referred here." was unsigned but is recorded as having been put in at 23:23, 24 Sep 2009 by DrProbability.Chjoaygame (talk) 20:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Maximum Entropy Production and Prigogine's Theorem of Minimum Entropy Production Sections

message: Added some historical references about thermodynamics, fluid mechanics, and meteorology.Chjoaygame (talk) 02:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: added some references

message: Made some alterations to clarify the nature of the variables of concern to non-equilibrium thermodynamics. It is not necessarily possible to define local macroscopic quantities for systems that are not in thermodynamic equilibrium, but when it is possible to define then, such systems can be investigated by the methods of thermodynamics. One starts with locally defined gradients and flux densities of extensive quantities as well as of intensive quantities.Chjoaygame (talk) 03:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  local and integral variables 

message: A single editor inserted a bunch of refs to the work of Swenson which seems to be out or proportion to prominence and acceptance in the literature, maybe even fringe.
:That comment "A single editor ... fringe." was unsigned. It is recorded as having been put in at 17:15, 29 Sep 2009 by Nerdseeksblonde.Chjoaygame (talk) 20:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please remember to sign with the four tildes.Chjoaygame (talk) 21:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swenson POV and balance 

message: This is a second notice that it is time to delete the afore-mentioned paragraph on Swensonism. It is pseudo-science, politely called "fringe" in the foregoing comment.Chjoaygame (talk) 23:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Second notice of time to delete the paragraph

message: Following the above notices, I have now removed the offending Swensonist propaganda. I think this ought to justify removing the tag at the head of the article that says that the article is of disputed neutrality.Chjoaygame (talk) 15:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Action of removing the Swensonist propaganda

message: It seems to me that it is now time to remove the NPOV tag from this article. The reason for the tag was the presence of a bunch of Swensonist propaganda. Swensonism is pseudo-science, out of place in this article. It seems that there is no longer a defender of the Swensonist material having a place in this article. I do not see a specific procedure for removing the tag, and so I am posting this comment for that purpose.Chjoaygame (talk) 11:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The procedure is either to discuss and see if anyone objects - you've done that - or to just remove it - I've now done that. I also removed the very old "expand" tag which didn't seem useful William M. Connolley (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Time to remove NPOV tag

message: I have added references to the first of Onsager's 1931 papers that orginated this subject, with special note of the important distinction that Onsager made between the rates of entropy production and of energy dissipation.Chjoaygame (talk) 23:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Onsager 1931 (I) 

message: I have put in a more precise statement of what Grinstein and Linsker (2007)says, and added a quote of their conclusion.Chjoaygame (talk) 10:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grinstein and Linsker 2007 detailed 

message: I have clarified and added more details of the historical development of ideas of extrema of rates of energy dissipation and of entropy production. Also I have re-arranged the section on these matters.Chjoaygame (talk) 01:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  more details of historical development of ideas of extrema of rates of energy dissipation and of entropy production 

message: I have added some notes on local thermodynamic equilibrium.Chjoaygame (talk) 04:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  notes on local thermodynamic equilibrium 

message: Talk of "the constructal law" will be attractive to those who want to find Aristotelian telic explanations in matters where I think Aristotle himself would probably restrict himself to kinetic, material and formal explanations. I would suggest to the current Bejanist protagonist that he do not go further with his creeping insertion of this kind of teleology where it does not properly belong, no matter how much the Bejanist protagonist wishes it did.Chjoaygame (talk) 23:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: "Constructal law"

message: An editor 217.172.220.186 has put in a fair number of references to the work of Umberto Lucia. At page 292 of his article 'Irreversible entropy variation and the problem of the trend to equilibrium', Physica A, 376: 289-292 (2007), Lucia writes apparently uncritically about the "constructal" theory of Bejan. The work of Lucia is in the area of rational thermodynamics which is not quite the same as ordinary classical thermodynamics, rational thermodynamics being a very abstract and specialized subject. The rather grand apparently universal proposals of Lucia seem far more general than is accepted by established authorities. Though he has been publishing in this area at least since 1995, Lucia is not cited in Grandy's relatively comprehensive and authoritative 2008 book, nor in the 2008 book by Lebon, Jou, and Casas-Vázquez, nor in the 2007 discussion by Stijn Bruers, 'A discussion on maximum entropy production and information theory', J. Phys. A: Math. Theor., 40: 7441-7450, who concludes about other work; "We end this appendix by repeating that the above ideas are still very speculative". If the editor 217.172.220.186 wants to go further with his entries on Lucia's work, I think 217.172.220.186 needs to give a justification in this talk page before doing so.Chjoaygame (talk) 03:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: references to the work of Umberto Lucia

message: There is a new edit: "Most systems found in nature are not in thermodynamic equilibrium because our planet is situated near the Sun, which produces strong temperature and photon density gradients. Non-equlibrium thermodynamic systems are typically characterized by a presence flux of matter and energy between parts of the system."
The new edit is about the singular cause of the non-equilibrium state of the earth, but what is needed here is a general statement here about systems throughout the universe. Most systems found in nature are very far from our planet and from the Sun. I think the new edit is inappropriate because it is too particular when generality is needed. I am not at this moment undoing the new edit because I suppose its author may not like me to do so, and may wish to present some reasonable argument for its appropriateness, which I would like to see. I think the author should undo his own edit.Chjoaygame (talk) 08:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have undone the above-quoted new edit for the reasons given above, with no reply from the new editor.Chjoaygame (talk) 03:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: New edit about the earth and Sun not appropriate at this point

message: It would be good to see general and mathematical formalized materials on Abiogenesis Topics, derivable from subjects covered by those like Alexander Oparin, Miller Urey, and Joan Oro(sp?).  The topic of Combinatorial Chemistry in homogeneous fluid environments, under cyclical concentration, electrical, thermal, and optical loads, like early earth oceans, under daily solar cycles, tides, and weather, is of critical importance, to understanding the origins of life in Abiogenesis Systems Methods.  With a chemical soup rich with carbon related compounds in solutions, as the early earth ocean were, with all of the biomass stored in the oceans as non-living biomolecules, would produce numerous sub-networks of reactions within the larger frame of Brute Force Combinatorial Chemistry.  It would be self organizing, producing reaction networks in the daytime, converting photon energy in energy storing molecules, and producing reaction networks in the nighttime, converting energy storing molecules into other molecules.  Both forming a basis for proto-photosynthesis and metabolism.  Likewise, in the greater superstucture of Brute Force Combinatorial Chemistry, the sub-networks of reactions in this proto-metabolism, would statistically favor durable, reactive, synergistic molecule network systems, in this Molecular Darwinism.  The synergism aspect would be key, in the sense that the metabolic reaction sub-network molecules, that can reactively work with the background chemical soup of complex, yet otherwise dead end reaction products, would utilize this diverse main backround chemical soup as a molecular feeding ground, in their other two sub-network attributes of being both durable and reactive.  The overall feedback properties of durable, reactive, synergy molecular sub-systems, would form the basis of life, in the necessary environment of exactly such a non-equilibrium thermodynamic system.  Even Jupiter shows how non-equilibrium systems with extreme vorticity, and thermal cycles between interior and space, and weak solar loading, can produce a complex chemical atmospheric system, that is not anywhere near perfectly mixed as entropy might indicate, after four billion years of mixing. LoneRubberDragon-SET-236-765-732-171-160-170-744-543-253-750-714-909-VEL 76.166.233.62 (talk) 10:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a new main article would be the place for this kind of work. The bitter truth is that non-equilibrium thermodynamics would, in hope, like to have something useful to say about abiogenesis, but, in fact, is so poorly developed that it cannot even have much useful to say even about the general organization of the weather. True, Prigogine was a fine student of thermodynamics, but that does not make all his work truly a part of thermodynamics. To have a section about abiogenesis in the article on non-equilibrium thermodynamics would be in a sense pretentious, pretending that non-equilibrium thermodynamics is more advanced than it really is. One fundamental difficulty is that in abiogenesis, the distinction between work and heat is not sharp enough to be useful. Thermodynamics requires a sharp and clear distinction between work and heat. That distinction is not enough to organize the thinking processes in the study of abiogenesis, which therefore is in a sense a new subject in its own right. Statistical mechanics is more flexible than non-equilibrium thermodynamics and is perhaps more suited for the study of abiogenesis.Chjoaygame (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The most disturbing thing is, perhaps, that all of humanity, in the very domain of study under such political rancor, religious associations, and physical and medical applications, of abiogenesis Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics and Chemistry, with traces in Oparin 1920's, Miller Urey 1950's, and Joan Oro in the 1960's and 1970's, have all shown little result in analyzing the results of these non-equilibrium systems.  It is as if the world loves mediocrity and hiding knowledge, with intentionally placed blind spots in thinking over many decades, of happy stupid children of humanity.  There IS more than work and heat.  There is photochemistry, did you forget?  Photons striking silver based molecules.  Photons striking silicon mineral surfaces in fluids.  The distinction between what some think is a response, and what is ueful knowledge, is the difference between flash and fizzle, of not so free speech in america and the world.  Pretensious is veils of division, written inj political spin statements, and little tiny minds acting like children under the law that makes all thermodynamics, the dynamics of death choice.  Oh well, have it your own little retarded world's way.  We could live in the 11th century like Islam Dictates, as another mere pretensious false infidel god who botched the universe up, if you believe that sort of rubbish. 76.166.233.62 (talk) 00:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abiogenesis 

message: The edits that I just undid seem to be self-promotion. They have two signatures, one just an address, the other a named editor. Unless there is some evidence that these were not self-promotion, they are not admissible edits.Chjoaygame (talk) 02:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  undid apparent self-promotion 

message: Anonymous Editor 208.99.241.102 has strongly weakened the expression of the page about work by Tschoegl, with no covering explanation for his edit. It would be of interest to know why his modification is so strong. It is most comfortable for other editors when editors sign themselves in with their own account names. It is not clear from the edit and its cover note whether Editor 208.99.241.102 has himself actually read the work by Tschoegl, or whether he is just expressing his feeling that the support given in the page for Tschoegl's work seemed excessive and lacking neutrality or secondary support. Perhaps Editor 208.99.241.102 may be right, but it would be nice to have some reason from him for his edit. This talk page would be the place for that reason now.Chjoaygame (talk) 10:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  it would be nice to have the reasons for this edit 

message: I undid the edits because more work is needed on their content and setting out, and because the English is faulty.
It is evident that the material offered is valuable and I hope that Editor Annakremen will do what is needed to make it acceptable, and not be discouraged by this initial rejection.
The change of section heading as an afterthought indicates a lack of planning of the work. The Prigogine proposition is of narrow scope, and this should be reflected in the structure of the article. The new material is of far wider scope, and this should be indicated by its being presented in a format that makes this clear. That it claims to cover financial markets raises much doubt about its logic. This is because financial markets do not have Hamiltonian dynamics. I am not sure, but I think some of the logic of other parts of the edits is faulty.
The new material is mostly, I think, new research that has not been presented in critical secondary sources. It is, however, presented as established knowledge. Its relation to other relevant work is not discussed. It is not clear whether the edit may be written by a related party, which would raise the question of conflict of interest. The English is flawed throughout.
Broadly speaking, the edits give an impression of soap-boxing. This could be remedied by citing critical review of their content.
I am glad that we have you here, Editor Annakremen. I hope you will persist. Your approach needs to be more critically neutral or disinterested, and your setting out of the material should be better organized. Secondary source criticism is needed. You need some way to get the English right.Chjoaygame (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  undid a valuable edit that needs work before it can be accepted 

message: I removed the added parenthesis "(but not impossibility)" partly because it was unsourced and partly because the best sources say its message is wrong.
I do not know exactly what the anonymous IP editor has in mind here, but I can say that the best sources say that entropy is not defined for non-equilibrium states. Many physicists would dearly love to see entropy defined for non-equilibrium states, but that is wishful thinking.Chjoaygame (talk) 01:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  but not impossibility 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Non-equilibrium thermodynamics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140520040325/http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.49710142906/abstract to http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.49710142906/abstract
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Law of maximum entropy production and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 5#Law of maximum entropy production until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Law of maximum entropy production" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]