Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

permaculture - [permaculture] Re: permaculture Digest, Vol 12, Issue 24

permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: permaculture

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Jonathan Raney" <JRaney@co.whatcom.wa.us>
  • To: <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: [permaculture] Re: permaculture Digest, Vol 12, Issue 24
  • Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 09:51:57 -0800

how can energy be "lost forever" without violating the law of conservation of
mass and energy? JMR

>>> permaculture-request@lists.ibiblio.org 01/20/04 03:20AM >>>
Send permaculture mailing list submissions to
permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
permaculture-request@lists.ibiblio.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
permaculture-owner@lists.ibiblio.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of permaculture digest..."


Today's Topics:

1. entropy and PC yields (Antonio Scotti)
2. re: entropy and PC yields (Simon Forman)
3. entropy and PC yields - does permaculture defy the laws of
physics? (Daniel.Donahoo@dhs.vic.gov.au)
4. Re: entropy and PC yields (John Schinnerer)
5. "Oval Office" documentation up online (John Schinnerer)
6. Re: entropy and PC yields - does permaculture defy the laws
of physics? (Paul Osmond)
7. Re: entropy and PC yields - does permaculture defythe laws of
physics? (georg parlow)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 23:22:56 +0100
From: "Antonio Scotti" <antonio.scotti@tiscali.es>
Subject: [permaculture] entropy and PC yields
To: "permaculture" <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
Message-ID: <005101c3dede$3b282ae0$ed93fea9@it>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"

Hi there,
I wanted ask you guys a question which has been going on in my head for some
time. And a couple of days ago when I re-read
"PC in a Nutshell" I found a reference to this same issue . So I thought I
could ask the list for enlightment.
It is said or hint that a permaculture system can be able to produce more
energy that it receives as its input.
In PC we cycle energy and nutrients and utilize them as many times as
possible till they are in a state that cannot be utilized anymore.
Still at each energy transaction, the law of entropy states that part of the
initial available energy goes lost forever. So even if we cycle and cycle the
same resource at each time part of its inherent energy must have gone lost.
So if you have 10 calories to start with, on the second cycle you may have
9.5 if you are very efficient, and next one perhaps 8.9 and so on. But the
overall available energy is diminishing at all times. Does PC "infringe" the
law of entropy? In which respect it is possible to produce more energy than
the one received in input?

Please enlighten me!
All the best

Antonio
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/permaculture/attachments/20040119/3e21a7b9/attachment-0001.htm


------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 15:43:13 -0800
From: "Simon Forman" <calroc@mindspring.com>
Subject: re: [permaculture] entropy and PC yields
To: <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
Message-ID: <003101c3dee6$284d3a20$0807a443@4i1mp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

> Hi there,
> I wanted ask you guys a question which has been going on in my head for
some

> It is said or hint that a permaculture system can be able to produce more
> energy that it receives as its input.

No, no system does that. A permaculture system receives its energy from the
Sun, which gets it from fusing hydrogen atoms into helium.

A permaculture system captures much more usable solar energy than a
conventional farm, and it uses the energy it captures many more times than
on a conventional farm before the energy all finally dissipates as heat or
runs off in some other form.

> In PC we cycle energy and nutrients and utilize them as many times as
> possible till they are in a state that cannot be utilized anymore.

We cycle the matter nearly forever. If the matter ever gets into a state
where it can't be utilized then it becomes waste and is a problem. In pc we
try to arrange things so that all the forms of matter we create are food to
some other creature or process.

As for energy, we get huge amounts of it free from the Sun all day long. It
cycles through our systems and some is lost at every stage, most commonly to
heat, just as you say.

> Still at each energy transaction, the law of entropy states that part of
the
> initial available energy goes lost forever. So even if we cycle and cycle
> the
> same resource at each time part of its inherent energy must have gone
lost.
> So if you have 10 calories to start with, on the second cycle you may have
> 9.5 if you are very efficient, and next one perhaps 8.9 and so on. But the
> overall available energy is diminishing at all times. Does PC "infringe"
the

Even as the incoming energy is diminishing, so much more energy from the Sun
is coming in behind it that it doesn't matter. So the energy is Flying up
off the Sun and hurtling through space to blast down on the plants, animals
and machinery of our farms, where it splashes and dashes through on its way
back to space as radiated heat. We're losing it all the time but so much
comes rushing down from the Sun that it doesn't matter.


> law of entropy? In which respect it is possible to produce more energy
than
> the one received in input?

The way that one can expect pc to produce more is in contrast to
conventional farms, and even many natural ecosystems. The pc ecosystem gets
more useful work out of the same amount of incoming solar energy, usually
much more.

>
> Please enlighten me!

I hope this helped!
Peace,
~Simon


> All the best
>
> Antonio




------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 10:52:14 +1100
From: Daniel.Donahoo@dhs.vic.gov.au
Subject: [permaculture] entropy and PC yields - does permaculture defy
the laws of physics?
To: permaculture <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
Message-ID: <OF5B54A4B8.2D9D392C-ONCA256E20.00805DCC@service.csv.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"


Antonio.

>>> Does PC "infringe" the law of entropy? In which respect it is possible
to produce more energy than the one received in input?

As wonderful as permaculture is, it does not contradict the laws of
physics.

Your statement, "Still at each energy transaction, the law of entropy
states that part of the initial available energy goes lost forever. So even
if we cycle and cycle the same resource at each time part of its inherent
energy must have gone lost" is true.

It is not possible to produce more energy, because as you state energy is
required...however...it is possible to regain larger amounts of energy.

I'm sure others on the list could explain it better, but even though you
may spend a lot of energy pushing a rock to the top of a cliff. You have
created potential energy in that you can now drop the rock off the
cliff...energy is lost and some is gained, but as a whole it is lost.

Permaculture aims to capture as much of this energy gain as possible and
reduce the energy loss where possible.

The planet, theorectically, is always losing energy at at some point in the
distant future will grind to a halt...but that is a while off yet.

I'm sure others can explain this more succinctly, 1st year physics at uni
and stephen hawkings books are the basis for this response.

cheers

dan d





_________________________________________________________________________________

This email contains confidential information intended only for the person
named above and may be subject to legal privilege. If you are not the
intended recipient, any disclosure, copying or use of this information is
prohibited. The Department provides no guarantee that this communication is
free of virus or that it has not been intercepted or interfered with. If you
have received this email in error or have any other concerns regarding its
transmission, please notify Postmaster@dhs.vic.gov.au
_________________________________________________________________________________



------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 00:06:43 -0800 (PST)
From: "John Schinnerer" <john@eco-living.net>
Subject: Re: [permaculture] entropy and PC yields
To: "permaculture" <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
Message-ID: <2003.64.40.53.196.1074586003.squirrel@www.eco-living.net>
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1

Aloha,

Entropy is nothing more than a description of behavior observed in some
system(s). So the term is only meaningful when considered in a particular
context.
What are the boundaries of the system being observed? That is a key question.

In any reasonably healthy biological system on planet earth, if you limit your
system boundaries to within earth's biosphere, you will not observe entropy.
You will instead observe negentropy - an overall increase in available energy
over time.

This observation can be true for that system because the solar energy coming
into the system is not part of the equation.

If you redraw your (always arbitrary) system boundaries to include the sun,
then you may observe entropy in that larger system, as the sun burns itself up
(loses energy) and in so doing provides the inputs for the increase of energy
on system earth.

Of course the sun is losing energy in all directions, far far more than comes
to the earth alone, so it is not quite that simple.
The important point is paying attention to defining what the system under
consideration is.

It is also important to avoid applying physics concepts such as entropy to
living systems. The application of Newtonian physics, Cartesian concepts,
etc. to explain "life, the universe and everything" is part of the mistake
we've been living. Thinking about living systems in terms of physics concepts
such as entropy is a piece of that same mistake. Physics is very little (if
any) use in accurately describing behaviors of living systems.

When I kick a (relatively small) rock, physics can quite accurately describe
what the rock does.

When I kick a (live) dog, physics is pretty much useless for describing what
the dog does.

> ...Still at each energy transaction, the law of entropy states that part of
> the
> initial available energy goes lost forever. So even if we cycle and cycle
> the
> same resource at each time part of its inherent energy must have gone lost.
> So
> if you have 10 calories to start with, on the second cycle you may have 9.5
> if
> you are very efficient, and next one perhaps 8.9 and so on. But the overall
> available energy is diminishing at all times. Does PC "infringe" the law of
> entropy? In which respect it is possible to produce more energy than the one
> received in input?



John Schinnerer - MA, Whole Systems Design
------------------------------------------
- Eco-Living -
Design & Technology Services
People - Place - Learning - Integration
john@eco-living.net
http://eco-living.net


------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 00:09:36 -0800 (PST)
From: "John Schinnerer" <john@eco-living.net>
Subject: [permaculture] "Oval Office" documentation up online
To: "permaculture" <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
Message-ID: <2041.64.40.53.196.1074586176.squirrel@www.eco-living.net>
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1

Aloha,

I've finally got some text and pictures up on the double-vault composting
toilet I built in Hawai'i last spring (the "Oval Office," as it was dubbed):

http://www.eco-living.net/projects/ovaloffice/


John Schinnerer - MA, Whole Systems Design
------------------------------------------
- Eco-Living -
Design & Technology Services
People - Place - Learning - Integration
john@eco-living.net
http://eco-living.net


------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 20:56:33 +1100
From: Paul Osmond <s9900761@pop3.unsw.edu.au>
Subject: Re: [permaculture] entropy and PC yields - does permaculture
defy the laws of physics?
To: permaculture <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
Message-ID: <400CFB51.4060008@pop3.unsw.edu.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

Interesting thread!

Permaculture - and everything else we know about - indeed doesn't
contradict the laws of physics.

However, under certain conditions entropy itself can generate order. The
running down of "system 1", in energy terms, makes possible the
emergence of growth and complexity in "system 2" which is coupled to
"system 1". It's been described as negative entropy or "negentropy".

This property of emergence, or self-organisation of complex systems, is
what enables individual organisms grow and develop, and ecosystems to
flourish - in short, it is the engine of life, run in the final analysis
on solar energy.

And it is exactly what permaculture design, by learning from natural
systems, seeks to achieve. So it's not just the amount of the energy
"diverted" but HOW it's diverted.

Cheers, Paul Osmond


Daniel.Donahoo@dhs.vic.gov.au wrote:

>Antonio.
>
>
>
>>>>Does PC "infringe" the law of entropy? In which respect it is possible
>>>>
>>>>
>to produce more energy than the one received in input?
>
>As wonderful as permaculture is, it does not contradict the laws of
>physics.
>
>Your statement, "Still at each energy transaction, the law of entropy
>states that part of the initial available energy goes lost forever. So even
>if we cycle and cycle the same resource at each time part of its inherent
>energy must have gone lost" is true.
>
>It is not possible to produce more energy, because as you state energy is
>required...however...it is possible to regain larger amounts of energy.
>
>I'm sure others on the list could explain it better, but even though you
>may spend a lot of energy pushing a rock to the top of a cliff. You have
>created potential energy in that you can now drop the rock off the
>cliff...energy is lost and some is gained, but as a whole it is lost.
>
>Permaculture aims to capture as much of this energy gain as possible and
>reduce the energy loss where possible.
>
>The planet, theorectically, is always losing energy at at some point in the
>distant future will grind to a halt...but that is a while off yet.
>
>I'm sure others can explain this more succinctly, 1st year physics at uni
>and stephen hawkings books are the basis for this response.
>
>cheers
>
>dan d
>
>
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________________________
>
>This email contains confidential information intended only for the person
>named above and may be subject to legal privilege. If you are not the
>intended recipient, any disclosure, copying or use of this information is
>prohibited. The Department provides no guarantee that this communication is
>free of virus or that it has not been intercepted or interfered with. If you
>have received this email in error or have any other concerns regarding its
>transmission, please notify Postmaster@dhs.vic.gov.au
>_________________________________________________________________________________
>
>_______________________________________________
>permaculture mailing list
>permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture
>
>
>




------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 12:20:00 +0100
From: "georg parlow" <g.parlow@gmx.at>
Subject: Re: [permaculture] entropy and PC yields - does permaculture
defythe laws of physics?
To: <p.osmond@unsw.edu.au>, "permaculture"
<permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
Message-ID: <004301c3df47$580e4c70$0300a8c0@georg>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

WARNING: philosophy ahead!

I used to think that PC is a way to ward off or at least delay entropy's
inevitable triumph. PC keeps things lush and green and going, while plowing
and spraying and irrigating will in not so far future turn the land into
desert - which I perceived as a high-entropy state. Underlying this position
was an assumed polarity, something like life versus death, or construction
versus destruction, or increasing complexity versus decreasing complexity.

Today I have a different view, mostly thanks to some aside statements of
Lynn Margulis in "Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origin of Species".
Today I see this:

Life is a servant to entropy, or put the other way around: entropy is the
purpose of life. Life speeds up entropy, because entropy gains a small
percentage of all available energy in every transformation process - and
there are much more transformations happening due to a living animal, than a
dead one. Also this whole huge rock we call earth is stored energy. If it is
a dead planet, most of the energy just gets shifted about a bit until it is
all flat and boring. If the surface is covered by this slimy film we call
life, things keep moving, minerals are mined, chemical reactions abound, and
even the mere mechanical forces at play (erosion et al) arent any less
active, quite the opposit, for the dirt washes down the slope and we dig it
back up, the house breaks down and we build it up again.

Life always pays ud for serving it's purpose with good gut-feelings, like
eating and sex feel good because they serve life. If entropy is the obvious
and only direction this universe is (currently) heading, obviously we
receive incentives in serving this. That is the reason doing PC feels so
great in my guts and cells.



* * *
Georg Parlow
mailto: g.parlow@zartbesaitet.net
persönlich: http://zartbesaitet.net/gp
Berufung: http://zartbesaitet.net
Post: A-1230 Wien, R.Zellergasse 70/4/1


Das Buch: "Zart besaitet"
Untertitel: "Selbstverständnis, Selbstachtung und Selbsthilfe
für hochempfindliche Menschen"
ISBN: 3-9501765-0-0
erhältlich: www.festland-verlag.com



------------------------------

_______________________________________________
permaculture mailing list
permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture


End of permaculture Digest, Vol 12, Issue 24
********************************************




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page