Community > Forum > Technology & Science > The views of Physics, Engineering, Economics etc. compared

The views of Physics, Engineering, Economics etc. compared

Posted by: Ekkehard Augustin - Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:26 pm
Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 46 posts ] 
Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
The views of Physics, Engineering, Economics etc. compared 
Author Message
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post The views of Physics, Engineering, Economics etc. compared   Posted on: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:26 pm
This discussion appears clarifying to me because of experiences and observations in other threads.

Of course my own knowledges about the views of the other disciplines are limited ans so will include some errors, misunderstandings etc.

The major view at present is the view on energy - regardless of its purpose.

In Physics energy can't be produced nor consumed - energy only can be transmitted between regions and over distances or it can be transformed from one of its several forms or sorts into another of them.

But in Economics ans economies there are energy markets and energies have costs. Particular forms/sorts of energy are said to be produced.

This is looking like a contradiction or so and should be explained, clarified or so. This will be done in this thread and should not be done in another thread if possible.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 6:12 am
Posts: 321
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Post    Posted on: Sat Oct 28, 2006 11:38 pm
In physics or rather applied physics or engineering, energy is collected, moved to somewhere useful, and expended to perform work of some kind.

A finite amount of energy must be expended to collect it, and a finite amount is wasted when expending it. The measure of these amounts is the 'efficiency' of the collection or expending process. In the economic world, it's the major part of the cost of the energy. Usually though, human factors add other costs.


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Sun Oct 29, 2006 6:24 pm
Hello, WannabeSpaceCadet,

regarding energy in the economic world the things are different toa larger degree than said up to now. I will explain it later by EDITing this post - it has to do with availability etc.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Trainee
Spaceflight Trainee
avatar
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 3:41 pm
Posts: 34
Location: California
Post    Posted on: Sun Oct 29, 2006 6:55 pm
O.K. I'm probably going to be sorry I asked this, but . . .

What?

Let me start by syaing that I'm neither a Physicist, Engineer or Economist.

But, I'm lost with this thread. You're going to discuss views on Energy from the perspectives of these disciplines?

What kind of Energy? Chemical, Electrical, Mental (ie: the energy put into a project by an entrepreneur) or those really expensive drinks that come in small cans?

My $ 0.02 worth. Buck Bunny


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 6:12 am
Posts: 321
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Post    Posted on: Mon Oct 30, 2006 3:12 am
It started out about electrical power generation, but what I said applies in general:

You have some 'work' you want to do, i.e. a mass to move around or heat up. This requires power to be applied at a particular location.

This could be by chemical fuel, the electrical grid, animal or human power, or even a nuclear explosion. There are costs involved in delivering & applying sufficient power, which I say are mainly due to the efficiency of each process.

Ekkehard seems to think that economists can override the laws of physics, and set their own costs. I say they do that at their own peril: TANSTAAFL.


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Mon Oct 30, 2006 9:07 am
Hello, WannabeSpaceCadet,

it seems I ought to post here what I announced to add to my previous post by EDIT.

There is no reason to say
Quote:
Ekkehard seems to think that economists can override the laws of physics, and set their own costs. I say they do that at their own peril: TANSTAAFL.
because I didn't tell yet how the things about energy are on the economic world and Economics.

Like I already said it has to do with availability. In Physics energy only can be transformed between its different forms - from potential energy into kinetic energy for example or from kinetic energy into electric energy. But energy never can be generated, produced or destroyed or consumed in that sense that the total amount of energy in the universe is reduced.

This means that in Physics the amount of energy available in the universe is constant, unchanging and unchangeable.

In the economic world and in Economics this doesn't matter but of course is accepted as scientfic truth.

The availability that matters in Economics (and the economic world) is the availability to natural persons and/or persons by law. Natural persons for example are the people posting here, working in companies as employees or even CEOS, politicians and the like while persons by law are - in Germany at least - companies on stocks or LLCs.

Availability to such persons means that they have access to the energy - as long as the talk here is about energy - and can do something by it or trade it.

So in Economics the availability is something that is limited to regions or locations and to conscious and aware intelligent beings - humans at present. There is a lot of energy available at, on and in the sune, on venus and inside Jupiter - but it is of no meaning for Economics or the economic world.

Consequently this means that energy can enter the economy and/or it can leave the economy. To turn sunlight - radiation energy - into electricity and current(s) - electric energy - photons/light must arrive on Earth from the sun. The arrival means that the light enters the economy - and thus becomes available in difference to before that arrival. When it left the sun over eight minutes earlier it wasn't yet in the economy.

And if that light is not used here but reflected into space it leaves the economy again - becoming non-available.

So for Economics energy is only the energy that is available where the economy is and where the intelligent, conscious and aware beings are - but not the energy out of reach because that energy can't be subject to economic behaviours, actions, decisions etc..

Next for Economics energy is only real energy if it can provide any use. Those portions of space radiation that only cause death but can't be used for production, delivery and the like aren't energy really but a danger simply that has to be handled.

But energy available in the economy isn't available to the people - the households for example - yet. There is a lot of kinetic energy in the rivers. But this energy is not available to the households in the twons, villages etc. kilometers away from that river. This means that those households don't take it into account - for them that energy is not there and doesn't exist economically.

But there are the power stations using artificial lakes to transform the kinetic energy of artificial cataracts into electrical energy that can be delivered by wire to the households in the towns etc. kilometers away. This means that to households economically non-existent energy becomes economically existent to them.

This means that energy has created seen from the view of the households: economically energy has been produced because it has been made locally available.

So in Economics energy can be produced while it never can be produced in Physics - and this is no contradiction. Simply the terminology is different. The reason is that the terminology of Physics is that improper for the subject(s) of Economics that it really leads to results that are wrong without doubt. Because of this Economics have their own terminology. It can be translated and then it turns out that there is no contradiction to Physics.

The central difference in the terminlogies focussed on in this post regards the term availability: local availability in Economics vs. availability at all or in the meaning of existence in the universe.

One step further and your statement
Quote:
A finite amount of energy must be expended to collect it, and a finite amount is wasted when expending it. The measure of these amounts is the 'efficiency' of the collection or expending process. In the economic world, it's the major part of the cost of the energy.
is adressed, WannabeSpaceCadet.

For those producing energy - let's say electric energy - the energy (electricity ehere) produced is a real revenue while for thos using that energy the energy used is real costs. The energy used is no loger economically available and thus consumed and gone.

If now a company consuming energy is a producer of energy than the energy consumed is real costs while the energy produced is real revenue - meaning that energy can be both costs and revenue without meaning that energy is wasted. And there is an example for that - nuclear reactors consume energy to meet safety requirements. From time to time the reactors need to be switched off the net and shut down for regular maintenance. The safety equipment needs to stay active and because the reactor is shut down batteries are used then. That energy economically is going nto the production process as real costs - of the production of energy as real revenue.

But these costs don't have to do with Dollars, Euros etc. to be paid for energy yet. I simply will go on later.

You are right, WannabeSpaceCadet this by far not limited to electricity but will consider DeltaV also later.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Sun Nov 05, 2006 4:04 pm
In Physics the forms of energy are distiguished into potential energy, kinetic energy, electric energy, radiation, magnetic energy, warmth (not the thermic motion of molecules) ...

Of course Economics agree to Physics competely – Economics only see that some of these forms of energy have a property in common that other forms don’t share.

Sunlight as well as watercraft have in common with windcraft that they are enetering the economy of their own – they become available to conscious and aware intelligent beings without these beings to have to do soemthing for that.

These forms of energy only require equipment to make use of them – walls, turbines, solar cells.

But the walls, turbines and solar cells must be produce, built, developed soemhow – without them the said energies can’t be used no way. Consequently the first trubines and cells etc. can’t have been made by using sunlight, watercraft or windcraft. And there is a fourth such energy that can’t be used yet but that is worked on: the warmth of the inner of the Earth – which illustrates the aspect.

So the question is what has been used before the first use of thos energies that enter an economy of their own.

Cleraly people are working and this work consumes energy (the energy leaves the economy) – this energy is got by food, potables and breathing: oxygen is reacting with the molecules of bread, meat, water, apples, oranges, cheese, beer and much more. But the focus here is on oxygen because it is ubiquitous – it’s around us everywhere on Earth and thus must be seen as something available to us of its own.

So oxygen provides access to energy to humans as conscious and aware intelligent beings. And as known oxygen also is used as a source of energy for rockets and space vehicles: so far a first step to DeltaV.

But still the question isn’t answered really what the soruce of energy is that enabled the production of the first equipments that enable the use of energies that enter the economy of their own – food is required by the beings and it doesn’t come to them of ist own. The answer is that the body of beings also uses sunlight etc. and that this energy as well as the food eaten earlier enables to go for the food etc.

To turn back to the enegries searched for that are required to build turbines etc.- and to leave the aspect that makes me smile... – the parts and material of turbines and walls and solar cells need to be mined, to be worked on by a fabric and to be made available at the location where watercraft, windcraft or sunlight enter the economy.

This measn that they need to be transported – from the mine to the fabric and from the fabric to the location – transportation means movement and movement menas kinetic energy being at work,

But this kinetic energy to large degree is NOT watercraft, windcraft or sunlight – very lot of trucks are used. These are powered by oxygen and gasoline – and the gasoline itself is minded somehow and must be transported.

At this point Economics distinguishes two groups of energies – those entering the economy of their own and those that have to be looked and serached and worked for. In general Economics ditinguish between free commodities and economic commdities. Free commodities are available in abundance, in amounts that exceed the requirements, need, desires, wishes etc. while economic commodties are avialble in amount less than the desires, wishes, dreams, requirements and needs.

The energy sunlight is a free comodity, oxygen as asource of energy is a free comodity – but gasoline is an economic commodity as well as all sources of enegry that must be mined, worked for or else gone for. To get these economic energies other energies must be consumed: a second steo to DeltaV. In other words – again energy is costs as well as revenues, again energy is consumed to get energy.

This means that those energies that are free commodities have NO monetary or nominal costs but only real costs of the kind of opportuinity costs – while the other energies that are economic energies HAVE monetary or nominal costs. The first group mustn’t be accounted while the second really has to be accounted.

By the way – as far as I know at night energy got by sunlight is radiated off into space. Economically this is opportunity costs, not accountable and simply enegry leaving the economy.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 6:12 am
Posts: 321
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Post    Posted on: Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:11 pm
Oh no! If economists start considering sunlight as part of the economy, their next step will be to tax it!

We already have carbon taxes, which are pretty much a tax on consuming free air.


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Trainee
Spaceflight Trainee
avatar
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 10:37 pm
Posts: 39
Post    Posted on: Mon Nov 06, 2006 11:11 pm
Taxing the Sun, I would not put it past the Feds.

But this topic sounds like it is to become another "A scientific economic estimation" / "Accumulation of a financial base in detail ".
I gotta get the hell out of here.


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Tue Nov 07, 2006 7:45 am
Hello, Number2,

don't worry - I don't have in mind to calculate something here (althought I wonder what's speaking against the calculations in the Accumulations-thread because there are a lot calculations done by others here in the Technology section).

I would find it interesting what the view by engineers, chemists, medical doctors is.

Hello, Andy Hill and Stefan Sigwarth,

what can you say regarding those views?



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)

EDIT: One remark: The point I am out on currently regrading the economic view in comparison to the view of Physics isn't reached yet. And it all sinply is meant to improve the interdisciplinary talk, understanding etc.


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 6:15 pm
Posts: 1233
Location: London, England
Post    Posted on: Tue Nov 07, 2006 9:24 am
Ekkehard Augustin wrote:
Hello, Andy Hill and Stefan Sigwarth,

what can you say regarding those views?


Firstly I thought this thread was starting to head towards "A scientific economic estimation" / "Accumulation of a financial base in detail " with loads of tables and figures, make a run for it while you still have the will to live :)

Secondly, I'm not really sure what is being discussed here or what the point of the discussion is. As far as I am concerned physics is physics and energy conversion is defined by its laws, if economists view different things as being energy then I completely lack understanding whats going on and would rather stick to the universe I am familiar with and not move to a quantum one inhabited by the finance people. :)

Thats about all I can add to the conversation I'm afraid.

_________________
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Tue Nov 07, 2006 9:47 am
Hello, Andy Hill,

I don't have in mind something like an idea that Economics view other things being energy than Physics - Economics view the same "things" being energy as Physics.

The point up now is and was that Economics consider a subset of the "things" Physics view as energy because all that what is not member of that subset is without the reach of the worl economy of our planet.

Additionally Economics is aware of the circumstance that this subset is spread over the whole surface of our planet and over the volume the world economy has access to.

Several issues by in two or three threads are causing me the impression that Physics are neglecting and ignoring this "spread over the planetary surface and volume" and even care about it. This seems to be due to the subject(s) of Physics und thus justified within that discipline.

But once the "spread..." is cared about the results are changing without hurting Physics - which has an impact on whats considered to be optimal, efficient and the like.

Just one remark about all the tables and figures and the two threads mentioned:

It simply is the required and proper reaction and response to those two posters I refuse to talk to. And if the one of them - Peter - wouldn't have tried to restrict it all to the view of Physics, to the view of his beliefs etc. most of the tables and figures wouldn't have been required.

Also I was and am simply interested to find out the numbers like others do in this section here. And so I am interested to keep transparent how and which way I get the numbers. This way they can be checked, they and the way(s) can be discussed, alternative ways can be lokked for, tried and posted and much more. They can - if there is interest in it - but of course it's voluntary - like each talk here.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)

In this thread here I can't imagine no tables and figures with loads of numbers because no numbers are discussed or looked for.


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 6:12 am
Posts: 321
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Post    Posted on: Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:17 am
Re: Availability

"The Universe is big. Really big. Mind-bogglingly overwhelmingly big. No, bigger than you're thinking. Bigger than that, too." :lol:

All the things that people want, economically speaking, are available in quantities larger than the entire population of Earth could ever use in 100 billion years.

BUT the physics cost of accessing any of it, except the tiny bit on or near the surface of the Earth, is currently much higher than the value to be gained. The efficiency is negative.

Thus what economics refers to as availability or scarcity, is merely a short-sighted simplification of basic physics reallity.

Everything is physics, if you look hard enough or dig deep enough.


Back to top
Profile
Space Walker
Space Walker
User avatar
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2004 8:30 am
Posts: 236
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Post    Posted on: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:34 am
Yes we can have all the molten or solid iron we want if only we can access the Earth's core :lol: Yeh right :!:

The basic economic problem is one of limited resources and unlimited wants. Practically speaking (not physics mind waffle) that's the situation that our current society is facing. Some nations have plenty of the basic requirements for humans eg. land, water, shelter, while others not enough. Not everyone wants to share and even if they did so equibly, the human race is expanding at an ever increasing rate and technology and the Earth are not up to it as evidenced by increasing adverse environmental events.
Increasing levels of CO2 and other pollutants in the atmosphere.
Increasing pollution of the land.
Increasing adverse weather events, drought, flood.
Increasing global temperatures.
Increasing loss of ice from the poles.
Increasing loss of ozone from our atmosphere.
Increasing deforrestation.
Increasing loss of non-human species.
Increasing human population.
End result - not good for the Earth or it's inhabitants.
eg. Stern Report, recent report on global fish stocks

Remember that this is the only home that we have and we better start taking care of it 'cause up to now we haven't. :cry:

_________________
Beancounter from Downunder


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Wed Nov 08, 2006 9:09 am
Hello, WannabeSpaceCadet,

you wrote
Quote:
Re: Availability
- I mentioned
Quote:
locally available
.

This is the difference that mustn't be neglected and mustn't be ignored.

Everything that can't be accessed at what you call negative "efficiency" thus is defined as "outside the economy".

This is why Economics can get results that are different to the results Physics etc. can get. I never said that Physics aren't involved - I say that Physics don't consider all facts, circumstances etc. that need to be considered.

Because of this I am explaining what I started to explain and will continue to do that. It can and should be discussed but not with the goal in mind to overcome what another one say but with the goal in mind simply to contribute someones own personal view, knowledge, etc.: Interdisciplinarity, respect to the other disciplines and understanding why the particular other disciplines get the results they get (regardless of if someone himself agrees to that other result, view etc.)

What I started to explain is meant to improve this all and in particular the understanding - I am seriously interested in the other views and I still don't know what is viewed as energy by engineering and chemistry for example. The answers best come from engineers and chemist in thos two cases. I know the terms "chemical energy" and "reaction energy" for example. They were subject to my chemistry lessons and classes at school. The testates and notes I got in chemistry from my teachers mostly were good. Of course behind "chemical energy" and "reaction energy" there are phisical energies - but the view of chemistry looks to be different than those of Physics.

To clarify and correct one issue a bit - in my previous post I said that Economics consider a subset of the energy Physics consider. This still holds but later it will turn out that the term energy partially is applied to something that is not considered in its form of energy by at least some subdisciplines of Physics.

To say "everything is Physics" and then to ignore what other sciences say is inscientific and injustified (I am avoiding harsher terms here...). And the concept behind "everything is Physics" can be applied by Economics also by saying "everything is Economics". Most if not all things have several aspects and combine physical aspects with economic aspects, engineering aspects and much more - so no such Pan-Physics, Pan-Economics, Totalitarims-similar or Fundamentalism-like claims are acceptable.

To some degree I am talking about claims here that are seen and identified by a lot of if not most sciences that are not Physics.

This is not meant awfully or the like - but simply as clarification and hint to where the borders of claims etc. are.

When I go on to explain what I have in mind since starting this thread one aspect or the other will become clearer, more precise etc.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 46 posts ] 
 

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests


© 2014 The International Space Fellowship, developed by Gabitasoft Interactive. All Rights Reserved.  Privacy Policy | Terms of Use