I'm what's left of Sam Vaknin and I'm the author of Malignan's Self-Love, Narcissism Revisited, Lost Time I Checked. I'm having a Donald Duck moment. Don't ask. Here's a new Surgeon General warning. Too much Sam Vaknin could be dangerous for your health.  And today I'm going to discuss interesting topics and they are interesting because they interest me. Of course. So what is the soul? Can we ever access another person's mind? What do artists do? Why do we confuse art for reality when it is actually a manifestation or reification of a fantasy? Do artists bridge, bridge between minds? Do they constitute a bridge between minds or a tunnel between minds like warm walls? And what does narcissism have to do with all this? Narcissism never forget is a confluence, an exos, a combination of fantasy and reality. So is narcissism perhaps a form of art and are narcissists artists? Do narcissists use their life as a huge canvas upon which they paint their grandiose fantasies and then make us believe that these are realities, some of us at least. And what is the shared fantasy if not an artistic space, a gallery where the narcissist exhibits his latest over, his latest creations. And in this sense perhaps a narcissist is Godlike because he creates his own space within which there's a whole world, a whole universe, a cosmos of everything. So these are the topics of today's conversation. It's a bit philosophical, but I think if you listen to it carefully, carefully, you could gain insights into the mind of the narcissist that are difficult to obtain by other means. We are all creative to some extent. We cook a good meal. We are being creative. We arrange things physically in physical space creatively. We paint, of course, we are creative. We sculpt. We, we write short stories. We write, we compose emails. All these are creative acts. So while the narcissist is very alien by his nature, he is inhuman. He's a form of artificial intelligence. He has no empathy, no access to emotions. He misses 70, 80% of the apparatus that makes other people human. There's one thing that he is in common with every, literally every other person on the planet and that is creativity. Only the narcissist chooses to leverage and utilize his creativity in a very peculiar way. He treats himself as the raw material rather than externalizes art. He internalizes his art. He embodies it and he reifies it. He is the sole artist who becomes his work of art. It's kind of, it's very close to what is called performance art, but even in performance art, there's a Cartesian, a Cartesian division between artist and his art. The narcissist is his art. There's nothing there except his art. Take away the fantasy, take away the fiction, take away the confabulation, the grandiosity, the delusions. Nothing is left. There's nobody there. Avoid an emptiness, a hole of mirrors without reflections in them. So today we're going to study creativity, art and the creative process as a way of better understanding or gaining a deep insight into the narcissist mind. And so we start with a quote by Karl Schmidt Rutloff. Not my fault. And he says, he said, I know of no new program. Only that art is forever manifesting itself in new forms since there are forever new personalities. But its essence can never alter, I believe. Perhaps I'm wrong. But speaking for myself, I know that I have no program. Only the unaccountable longing to grasp what I feel and what I see and to find the purest means of expression for it. It's a good description of the artistic process. But let's regress a bit and start and go back 3,000 years and get acquainted with a problem that has plagued philosophy since then. To this very day, it's very far from resolved. And it's known as a psychophysical problem. So it's long standing. It's probably intractable. Here's the problem. We all have a corporeal body, a physical body, flesh and blood, carbon based. It is an entity subject to all the laws of physics. Yet we experience ourselves, our internal lives and external events in a manner which provokes us to postulate the existence of a corresponding non physical complement. It's like we all say, yeah, we have a body, but there is someone inside the body. It's like an empty apartment inhabited by a tenant. And this corresponding entity, this tenant, ostensibly incorporates the dimension of our being which, in principle, can never be tackled with the instruments and form and logic of science. It's like a non scientific thing. So we use faith. We use mysticism to gain access to this alleged, ostensible entity. I'm saying alleged and ostensible, because we are still a long way from proving that such an entity exists. Or as many mystics would tell you, there's no way to prove it, in principle. So a compromise was proposed long time. The soul is nothing but our self awareness. It's introspection. It's the way we experience ourselves. But of course, it's a cyclical thing. It's a flow. It's a tautology. It's a flawed solution, because it assumes that the human experience is uniform, unequivocal and identical. And it also assumes that there is a self that does the introspection. So instead of soul, we have a self. We have a plurality of entities. We multiply entities, which is very bad in science. And maybe the human experience is uniform, unequivocal and identical, but there is no methodologically rigorous way to prove this. You may be experiencing the world totally differently to me. We have no way to objectively ascertain that all of us experience pain, for example, in the same manner over the pain that we experience is the same for all of us. This limitation on our knowledge prevails even when the causes of the sensation are carefully controlled and monitored, for example, in scientific experiments. A scientist might say that we can map and pinpoint the exact part of the brain which is responsible for the pain. By the way, this very sentence is wrong, because it assumes a causal relationship. But the truth is that we can map and pinpoint the exact part of our brains which lights up in response to pain. That's all we can say. Moreover, science is even able to demonstrate a monovilate relationship between the pattern of brain activity in C2 and pain. So there is this.  In other words, the scientific claim is that the patterns of brain activity are the pain itself. But this is a ridiculous claim. It's a policy. Such an argument is prima facie inadmissible. The fact that two events coincide, even if they do so always and without fail, does not make them one and the same. If A and B happen all the time simultaneously, it of course does not mean that A is B. Brain activity and pain happen all the time at the same second, but it doesn't prove that they're the same. Hume, David Hume. The serial occurrence of two events does not make one of them a cause and the other an effect. And we have a saying correlation is not causation. Similarly, the contemporaneous occurrence of two events only means that they are correlated. A correlate is not an alter ego. It is not an aspect of the same event. In other words, activity in the brain appears when pain appears, but it by no means follows that it is the pain. A stronger argument would crystallize if it were convincingly and repeatedly demonstrated that playing back these patterns of brain activity induces pain. Even so, we would be talking about cause and effect, rather than about an identity. If I could replay the brain patterns and you would feel pain, it doesn't mean that the brain patterns are the same. For example, maybe they are causing the pain or maybe there's a third component, third part of the brain that is involved and it detects the patterns and then it causes pain. I mean, you never know. There's no way to prove that they are one and the same. The gap is even bigger when we try to capture emotions. Pain is simple. I can take a pin and prick myself. I'll have pain. That's the simplest, most basic, most primitive thing everyone has is everyone experiences pain even. I mean, animals, everyone. But imagine trying to capture emotions or sensations and imagine using this crude, blunt, recently invented instrument called language to capture these things which preceded an antecedent language by millions of years. This seems close to impossible. How can one even half accurately communicate once, for example, anguish, love, fear, desire? We can hardly communicate hunger and thirst accurately. We are prisoners in the universe of our emotions, never to emerge. And the weapons at our disposal, language, are rusty and useless. Zen Buddhism says this. Language actually distorts, doesn't help. Each one of us develops his or her own idiosyncratic, unique emotional, emotional language. It is not a jargon or a dialect because it cannot be translated or communicated. Our private internal language cannot be translated or communicated. No dictionary can ever be constructed to bridge this lingual gap. I feel love, you feel love. Is there a dictionary that can tell me what's your love like? How you experience your love? What was on in your mind? Or even if you have, do you have a mind? I don't know if you have a mind. You claim to have a mind. What if your program to claim that you have a mind, but you don't actually have a mind? We know nothing about other people. In principle, experience is incommunicable. People in the very far future may be able to harbor the same emotions chemically, or otherwise to induce them so that I don't take a pill, you'll take a pill and we can be assured and ascertained by the manufacturer. The manufacturer will give us a money bank guarantee that if we take the same pill, we'll experience the same emotion.  Because how can we prove that we had experienced the same emotions? One brain could directly take over another maybe and then maybe we could feel the same. So maybe in the future there will be technologies where one brain will kind of become dominant and the other will become submissive or client brain. Yet even even then these experiences will not be communicable and it will have no way available to us to compare and decide whether there was an identity of sensations or emotions. Because we are utterly and totally dependent on language. And still when we say the word sadness, we all seem to understand what we are talking about. How do you explain this? Even when we're never able to communicate the essence of sadness, how do we know when we say the word sadness? We're talking about the same thing. In the remotest and furthest reaches of the globe, people share the feeling of being sad. In Nepal, in Russia, in Australia, in Macedonia, in Israel, in the United States, people are sad. The only place they're not sad is Canada, which raises the question, are the human. I'm kidding. Seriously, Canada is the antenna marker, the happiest countries in the world. But people are sad everywhere and sadness can be evoked by disparate circumstances. And yet we all seem to share some basic element of being sad. What is this element, unchangeable, immutable kernel, this tough core that we touch upon when we say I'm sad and that resonates with you. There's a frequency of vibration like touching this kernel and say I'm sad, by saying I'm sad. An identical kernel in you or core in you resonates with the same frequency. It's a little like color, you know. Color is a frequency of light. We have already said that we are confined to using idiosyncratic emotional languages. Each one of us has his own language. Each one of us has eight billion people on earth, minus the coronavirus victims. And each and every one of them has his or her emotional language. Totally private. I disagree with Wittgenstein. Wittgenstein said that there are no such thing as private languages. I think he was dead wrong. I think the foundation of human, the human experience is a private language. It starts with a private language. And these private languages cannot be translated to other idiosyncratic emotional languages. They cannot be communicated. These languages are not bridges, the function of languages to bridge. The function of this language is to isolate. Function of private languages is to isolate. So let's for a minute say okay everyone has a private language but there can be a meta language. A language that connects all these private languages. Like our giant eight billion pages or eight hundred billion pages dictionary. And everyone has his own private language, can access a dictionary and translate to another's language.  Maybe it is what we call to be human. Maybe this giant dictionary, this meta language, is the language of being human. Emotions and statements in this language. This language must exist to make even the most rudimentary communication between human beings possible. If we don't have these resonance, if these don't have this mega dictionary, if we don't have this meta language, how are we communicating at all? Even if we are getting it 90% wrong, we are still getting it 10% right. This 10% right must be based on something common. This is where narcissists are excluded. They have no access to this meta language, to this mega dictionary. It would appear that there must be a correlation between this universal language and our myriad idiosyncratic individualistic languages. And the narcissist is excluded from this. By the way not the psychopath. Psychopath lacks empathy and doesn't use his emotions. But his cold empathy is far more developed than the narcissist. And he does use his emotions from time to time. Narcissists are incapable. They have no access to their emotions. And they are utterly incapable of warm or emotional empathy. And their cold empathy is extremely primitive because it's a binary device. Yes, narcissists are supplied. No supplied. This person can give me supply. Let me scan. But I need to scan only for two, three qualities. Two, three properties. The psychopath scans for dozens, hundreds, thousands of properties. The narcissist scans for two, three, ten properties. Ten characteristics, ten vulnerabilities. The narcissist are very primitive compared to psychopaths. That's why psychopaths prey on narcissists. But the thing is coming back to the to the core issue. The thing is that there is a universal language. No question about it. It's an inefficient language. It does not allow us to communicate the bulk of our inner experience. The bulk of our emotions and even cognitions. Our world, our internal world, remains hermetically sealed inaccessible like the borders in today's world, the international borders, you know. But we still have a passport. We still, you know, we still somehow communicate with other people based on this meta, meta language or massive dictionary. And the narcissist is excluded even from this. So let's go back to pain. It's most primitive of sensations. Pain is correlated to brain activity on the one hand and to this universal language that I just mentioned, the meta language on the other hand. We would therefore tend to parsimoniously assume that the two correlates are but one and the same. Let me explain this obtuse statement. It may well be that the brain activity which goes together with pain is merely the physical manifestation of the metalingual element pain. In other words, there's this mega dictionary and in this enormous dictionary, there's an entry for pain, you know, in the letter P, entry for pain, page 20,467,444. That's an entry for pain.  It is the word pain in the dictionary, in this mega dictionary, in this meta language is the one that creates the patterns of electrical activity, biochemical activity in the brain that correspond to pain. We feel pain and this is our experience. It's unique. It's incomunicable. It's expressed solely in our idiosyncratic language. We know that we are feeling pain and we communicate it to others using this meta language. As we use the meta language to communicate to others, as we use this universal language to communicate to others, the very use or even the thought of using this meta language provokes the kind of brain activity which is so closely correlated with pain. But just a minute. Even if we don't communicate our pain, we still feel our pain. It's not true that communicating our pain is a precondition for feeling our pain. Well, I'm sorry, that's not true. For example, we can hypnotize someone to not feel pain. It seems and what is hypnosis? It's communication. Hypnosis is a communicated message. I can hypnotize you and then amputate you and you will not feel pain. So pain seems to be intimately linked to communication, to messaging, to signaling and indeed, if you think about it for a minute, most emotions, especially maybe pain, they signal something. They signal something to other, first of all to ourselves but then to other people, to the environment. They motivate us to interact with the environment in highly specific ways. For example, we are hungry, we seek food, we're in pain, we avoid the pain, we shun the pain, the source of the pain, especially when we're married. So it seems that emotions, sensations are intimately linked to the use of language. Moreover, we know that we can induce emotions by talking. I can cause you to cry. I can cause you to laugh. I just did it. I can cause, I can use language. That's the essence of psychotherapy. We use talk therapy, we use language to induce changes, especially emotional changes. But we can also use language to cause pain and other things. I mentioned hypnosis but not only hypnosis. What is the placebo effect? What's the placebo effect? It's when we give people totally innocuous, innocent, neutral substances and we convince them that these are medicines. This is a famous experiment. People were given water and they were told it's alcohol. And they had bodily manifestations of alcohol intoxication. Some of them, a few of them blacked out and they drank water. There was not a trace of alcohol in what they drank. So they were told it's alcohol. Their body reacted. They also emotionally reacted. Their empathy changed. Aggression levels went up. Sexual promiscuity went up. It is important to clarify that this universal language that I mentioned, meta language, it could be a physical thing. Maybe even genetic. I don't know where the dictionary is. Maybe you're always right. Maybe this is a collective unconscious. Maybe it's in the genes encoded somehow in the DNA. We know nothing about the DNA. Maybe 10%. We don't know that the vast majority of DNA is kind of trash. We used to consider it as trash until recently. Until we discovered that it's very meaningful. Then we used to think that 90% of our brain is glue, glia. Now we know it's not true. We don't know yet. A point in the future may come where we locate this meta language. Nature might have endowed us with this meta language to improve our chances of survival. Because to survive we must cooperate. We are cooperative species. Teamwork, zone, political. We work together. We don't survive very well as loners as we are discovering now in social distancing. Communication of emotions is of unparalleled evolutionary points. And a species devoid of the ability to communicate the existence of pain for instance would surely perish. You see fear. You communicate fear. Everyone runs away.  You communicate your pain. People avoid. People avoid the source of the pain. So you saved them some pain. Pain is our guardian against the parents of our surroundings. So let's summarize this section. We manage our interhuman emotional communication using a universal language which is either physical or at least has strong physical correlates. I believe also in the brain. And the narcissist is excluded from this. He is not part of this compact. Not only the narcissist by the way. Many, many people with autism spectrum disorder are also excluded from this dictionary. Ironically not so the psychopath. He is not excluded. Perhaps because psychopathy or anti-social personality disorder, especially psychopathy, is not really a mental health issue. It's more of a brain disorder. Similar to shall we say schizophrenia. And schizophrenics are not excluded from this language. They are not. Schizophrenia is a different issue altogether as to do with the cohesion of the self and hyperreflection and other other, but they are not excluded from this language. The function of bridging the gap between our private idiosyncratic languages and the more universal language was relegated to a group of special individuals. These individuals are busy constructing bridges between our inside and its language and the outside and its language. And this group of people are called artists. Artists, people who make art. It is the job of the artist to experience mostly emotions and then to mold their experience into the grammar, syntax and vocabulary of some kind of universal language. It is their job to communicate to us the echo of their own private idiosyncratic language. It is very interesting to note that we can understand art. It may be the only proof available that all our private languages are actually one and the same. Because the artist translates his or her private language into art. If private languages were massively dissimilar, if they were disparate, if they had nothing in common, we would never be able to understand the artist's art. His art reflects his language. To understand him we must have something in common, we must share some elements with his language. So it means our private language and his private language has a lot in common. Artists are forever mediating between us and their own experience. Rightly so, the quality of an artist is measured by his ability to loyally represent his own unique private language to us. The smaller the distance between the original experience of the artist, the emotions of the artist and the external representation, the more prominent the artist. The really, really groundbreaking, amazing artists, Chagall, Picasso in some periods, the really great artists, there is no different distance between their own private original idiosyncratic unique experience, their own emotions and what we see on the canvas, the representation. It's emotion there, it's raw emotion spread on the canvas. The emotion can be distorted, the emotion can be filtered through cognitions, through ideologies, through scores of painting and sculpting and you know, plastic arts and I mean all this is true, unfortunately. There are many, many constraints that distort the transmission mechanism, the transmission mechanism, but we feel the raw. We feel the raw, raw, if you wish, psyche or soul of, of A.P. Picasso or Chagall or Soutain on the, on the canvas. We feel the raw Van Gogh, he, it's like someone splattered his brain and it's splashed on the canvas. I'm sorry for this image, I hope you're not eating. We declare artistic success when the universally communicable representation succeeds to recreate and evoke in us the original emotion that was felt by the artist. The artist was said, he painted the painting, we look at it, we are said, it's a success, it's a success, it's resonance via the mediation of the artwork. It's very much like teleportation which allows in sci-fi yarns for the decomposition of the astronaut's body in one spot and its recreation atom for atom in another spot. Even if the artist fails to faithfully recreate his inner world but succeed in calling forth any kind of emotional response in his viewers or readers or listeners, he is still successful. He doesn't, I mean, it's very, the ultimate in art is that the, the artist succeeded to externalize his inner world and place it on an objective medium. That's the ultimate. But most artists don't succeed to do that so what they do instead, they create triggers and so when we watch the works of art, we're triggered, we're triggered to to some emotional response. Every artist has a reference group, his audience. They could be alive or they could be dead. For instance, the artist could measure himself against past artists. His heroes, his idols. The reference group could include few people or many people but they must be present for art in its fullest sense to exist. There's no art without the audience. No such thing. Modern theories of art speak about the audience as an integral and defining part of the artistic creation. Even the artifact itself, the work of art in Galsen includes the provenance of the multiple generations of viewers and readers and listeners and the interactions of masses of people with the work of art had created the work of art. We can, for example, Mona Lisa. You can't say Mona Lisa. The minute you say Mona Lisa, look how many associations, look how many worlds and universes spring to life. The Renaissance, how the Mona Lisa was stolen and returned, the Louvre, Paris, France, Leonardo Da Vinci. I mean, so many things. This precisely is the source of the dilemma of the artist as well. Who is to determine who is good? Who is a good artist? Who determines who is a quality of artist? Who is the authority that says you're a bad artist or you should look for another career? Put differently, who is to measure the distance between the original idiosyncratic internal private experience and its representation for public consumption? After all, if the original experience is an element of an idiosyncratic non-communicable language, we have no access to any information regarding this language and therefore we are in no position to judge it. Only the artist has access to his own internal language and only he can decide how far is representation of this internal language, how far it is from the original experience. In other words, it is the artist who judges his own success. He looks at his work of art and he says, I failed. I didn't capture, I didn't capture my inner vicissitudes, my inner turmoil, my inner chaos, my inner, my love, my hatred, my sadness, my art criticism is an oxymoron, it's a contradiction in terms, it's impossible. Granted, the reference group of the artist, his audience, however limited, whether among the living or among the dead, has access to that meta language, that universal dictionary that I mentioned before, that is available to all humans and still no member of that audience has access to the artist's original experience and so their capacity to pass judgment on the artist is in very great doubt. On the other hand, only the reference group, only the audience, can aptly judge the representation for what it is. The artist is too emotionally involved in his work of art. True, the called objective facts concerning the work of art are available to both the artist and to the reference group, but the audience is in a privileged status. Privileged status, its bias, is less pronounced than the artist. And who you come of course from is what is narcissism? The false self is a work of art. It is the narcissist creation, it's an expression of his internal language, his private language, and it is the audience, the sources of narcissistic supply that judge this creation and communicate their opinion and feedback and input to the narcissist, which even uses to reconstruct his internal world and affect his private language. The problem of the narcissist is that he has no access to this meta language so he is utterly dependent on his audience. A typical artist is not utterly dependent on the audience, he's also human being, he also has access to the meta language. Narcissist is like a blind person surrounded by seeing people, people with vision. So he depends on them to lead him. They are his guide dog if you wish. Normally the reference group will use the meta language embedded in us as humans and a modicum of empathy to try to vaguely compare their emotions to the artist's emotions, to try to grasp the emotional foundation laid by the artist. But this is very much like substituting pornography for real sex. Talking about emotions, let alone making assumptions about what the artist may have felt that we also perhaps share, there's a far cry for what really had transpired in the artist's mind. It's a speculation or the rudiments or a very mechanical view, like Benjamin said, a very mechanical reproducible view of art. The way I face with the dichotomy, the epistemological elements in the artistic process belong exclusively and incommunicably to the artist. The ontological aspects of the artistic process are observable by the group of reference, but this group has no have no access to the epistemological domain. So it's like two monopolies. Epistemological domain monopolized by the artist, no one has access to his mind, no one has access to his pain, no one has access to his emotions, only he knows what goes on inside himself in his inner landscape and then there's the audience and the audience has access to the work of art, has access to the meta language but no access to the artist's internal landscape. The work of art can be judged only by comparing the epistemological to the ontological, but what do you do when you have no access to the epistemological part? Nor the artist, neither his group of reference, can do this. This mission is not impossible. Art is a massive failure at communication because one of the two parts of the equation is monopolized and inaccessible and you know what? I'll go even further. Even the artists very often, frequently, has no access to that part, to his inner world, to his private language and especially if the artist is narcissistic, forget about it. So an artist must make a decision early on in his career. Should he remain loyal and close to his emotional experiences and studies and forego the warmth and comfort of being reassured and directed from the outside through the reactions of the reference group? In other words, should he go commercial? Should he not go commercial? I'm sorry. Or should he consider the viewers criticism and the advice of the reference group in his artistic creation? In other words, go commercial and most probably have to compromise the quality and the intensity of his original emotion in order to be more communicative. I repeat this. This is the core. This is absolutely the core in narcissism as well. If you regard narcissism as an artistic process. The artist has a dilemma. Should he remain loyal and close to his emotional experiences and studies and forego, give up the warmth and comfort of being reassured and directed from the outside through the reactions of the reference group? In which case he becomes autistic, no one understands his art, Van Gogh, and he cuts off his ear. Or should he consider the viewers criticism and advice of the reference group in his artistic creation and then most probably have to compromise the quality and intensity of his original emotion in order to be more communicative. Go commercial. As Jordan Peterson and Shelley Castle reported in 2003, artists may be challenged when it comes to cognitive filtering of information from the outside that is relevant to survival or to goal orientation. Latent inhibition leads to cognitive disinhibition. In their attempts to categorize and organize the avalanche, artists come up with atypical eccentric, schizotypo and unconventional solutions, including sometimes hallucinations. No wonder many artists use substances. Artists get immersed in their inner world at the expense of reality and personal needs such as self-care or social function. And so I'm quoting from the unleashed mind why creative people are eccentric by Shelley Carson, Scientific American Mind, May, June 2011. She says, A brain imaging study done in 2010 by investigators at the Kowalinska Institute in Stockholm suggests the propensity for both creative insights and schizotypal experiences may result from a specific configuration of neurotransmitter receptors in the brain. Using positron emission tomography, PET, Oyan de Manzano, Frederick Ulen and their colleagues examined the density of dopamine D2 receptors in the subcortical region of the thalamus in 14 subjects who were tested for divergent thinking skills. The results indicated thalamic D2 receptor densities are diminished in subjects with high divergent thinking abilities similar to patterns found in schizophrenic subjects in previous studies. Are you listening to this? People with divergent thinking and with original thinking, all artists are people with highly original thinking, the most original thinking. They own private language. These people are similar to schizophrenics. The researchers believe that reduced dopamine binding in the thalamus found in both creative and schizophrenic subjects may decrease cognitive filtering and allow more information into conscious awareness. Clearly, however, not all eccentric individuals are creative. Work from our lab says Shelly Carson indicates that other cognitive factors such as high IQ and high working memory capacity enable some people to process and mentally manipulate extra information without being overwhelmed by it. Through a series of studies we have in fact shown that a combination of lower cognitive inhibition and higher IQ is associated with higher scores on a variety of creativity measures. The shared vulnerability model suggests that at least a subgroup of highly creative individuals may share some but not all biological vulnerability factors with individuals who suffer from psychotic illnesses such as schizophrenia. This vulnerability may allow the highly creative person access to ideas and thoughts that are inaccessible to those of us with less porous mental filters. So I'm asking you, if the creative person is a pseudo-psychotic, near schizophrenic or possessed with extremely high IQ, what are your chances to understand him? What are his chances to communicate with you effectively? Art can also be perceived as a form of self-mutilation. The internalized anger of Jesus leading to his suicidal pattern of behavior pertains to all mankind. His sacrifice benefited humanity as a whole at least according to Christian orthodoxy and doctrine. So Jesus self-mutilated committed suicide in effect but did it for good cause. A self-mutilator in comparison appears to be selfish. His anger is autistic, self-contained, self-referential and therefore meaningless as far as we are concerned. His catharsis is a private language but what people fail to understand is that art itself is an act of self-mutilation. It is the etching of ephemeral pain into a lasting medium, the ultimate private language. So you remember the example of the scattered brain and what have you? I'm watching too many horror movies in this in this lockdown. It's the same, the artist is smeared on the canvas. People also ignore at their peril the fact that only a very thin line separates self-mutilation whether altruistic like Jesus or egoistic like the artist and the mutilation of others, serial killers, Adolf Hitler or considered himself an artist, a failed artist but still an artist and many serial killers by the way use the crime scene as a kind of improvised performance art scene. There's a lot of, there are many artistic elements in many many anti-social aggressive violent and murderous activities. It's again the nexus between narcissism, malignant narcissism, extreme psychopathy, extreme murderous aggression in art. We're not that far from each other as we think. Perhaps that's why we have this gut visceral reaction to narcissists and psychopaths not because they are so different to us but because they are so similar to us. That's not my insight regrettably. That is the insight of Zygmunt Freud. It's called the narcissism of small differences. We tend to hate, we tend to despise and to hold in contempt and to act aggressively, to aggress against people who are similar to us, not different to us. We are all narcissists and psychopaths which we are just loath to admit it.


What is up, you two? It y'all boy Well again dog, how are you? I'm straight bro. I mean y'all not helping me, but y'all not helping me enough Bro, I need more gotta help me read more guy. Hope me. I was straight remember my name, bro Just help me for one more time, bro. I promise one more time. Just one more. Okay. Thank you biscuit We got a smooth video, you know I'm saying so look today I'm gonna be texting my crush from high school now look this was a video suggested by y'all y'all think it's creator AF and I love it So look before we start hey follow me on Instagram cuz this is how I got this idea You know I'm saying somebody message me on Instagram and give me this idea and now that's how I'm gonna use this idea And also if you want to get a post notification shout out like this person All you gotta do is make sure you subscribe have this video like have that post notification on the bell on and send me a Screen on my Instagram. Yes, you gotta be following and then you can get a post like this person Get that off my screen my twitch on the screen because you know I'm saying I need I need y'all to go follow me on Twitch because I love engaging with y'all. I love talk with y'all. I love playing games with y'all It's just fun. It's a lit time. We vibe and use it You know some juice some eggs some everything bro.  So tell me how I feel about the edits Do y'all like this editing better? Do y'all like the old fashioned now? Let me give me a y'all opinion. Y'all matter I'm only doing this for y'all. So y'all matter. Let me know how y'all feel in the comments below You know what I'm saying, but uh, yeah, let's let's get straight to the video. Alright y'all so look we got my crush I had to change her name cuz I got people that watch my videos that I'm still cool with from high school And I'm not trying to start no rumors y'all know this kid don't mess with the drama y'all not gonna have my names in everybody's mouth Y'all not so yeah, I had to change her name just because of that But uh, we gotta start with you know, I'm gonna start with a simple hate because you know, we don't even know But all I know she might not even know a kid like that like I got her number But she might not even remember who the heck I am bro Like maybe she got like 18 Derek's in her phone hashtag Tatiana's you know I'm saying I Wonder see that's the only thing I don't know how long it'll take her to text back It might take her a minute to text back Because they be taking oh never mind.  Hey, hold on They on why she she was run. That's tough people is uh people gun last name Bruh, I'm back to put my whole government. Hey, can you Blur this out brah. I don't want to give my whole government name Bruh, I ain't what I have to give my whole government name They I don't need these niggas in the comments saying my whole government. I don't need that She better know me now, bro. Oh I remember yeah, okay, bro Hey Back first and now I'm a center of the first lyric. Yeah We're making good time too. All right, babe. I don't go to your take back.  She said what's up? Let's in this first leg.  That was literally high school Right. Yeah, I don't know a boy's 22. I'm currently recording this on my birthday But this probably they didn't post it to a little a little while after my birthday my birthday was February 16th Yeah, I'll be pre-recording some of these videos y'all just because I want to make sure I always got content for y'all What we remember we remember all the times we spent together come on Come on, you know, we all the times we spent together we come on I ain't gonna lie We didn't spend that much. I don't get it but like we was cool At least I think it was cool. I don't know how she gonna feel but I feel like we was cool Like we had some mutual friends I ain't gonna lie. She was she was bad. I don't know. She's still bad now cuz chicks change everybody change over time But she was bad in high school She was bad. She was thick Did you make a lot of memories and we should link again one Hold up. I might be a smooth doofie. I didn't even say nothing. Hey shout out to juice as our lives change from whatever Ever whatever be almost at her name. Whatever baby girl, whatever No, she won a link. I'll be real y'all She'd see to say she won a link with me mama be real She might know who I am. Oh, well, she knows what I am But she might know about YouTube cuz two things first of all just about everybody even the people I didn't talk to from my school know that I do YouTube.  You're like, bro. Thanks. Who are you like?  I'm gonna say no not really What about you?  So I know I gotta kind of put my You know I'm saying I gotta put my little my little personality to I just told you I Don't I'm trying to be specific.   I want to be more than that.  What? So she wait, what? Wait, what I don't want to wait Okay, yeah, this is okay. Yeah, this is like what I'm thinking right The fact that she's saying this and she's being so front up about it Is she a gold digger or is this just legit? I don't know. I'm okay.  I don't know if she don't think I'm talking about her Is she gonna think I'm talking about her? I Don't want everything. I'm talking about her. I don't want her to think I'm talking about her when I just said that I feel like I shouldn't have sent that lyric. I feel like I just got screwed over Okay, we gonna wait wait. We gonna see what she says Chat tell me what I think in the comments below Do y'all think it's a chance that she could have liked me I mean, we don't I don't know as much as y'all. I'm just a few years y'all Y'all think she could have liked me in high school too, or do y'all think she knows why him and this is a money-grabbing Is she trying to be a gold digger right now? I don't is that cocky to think though?  Wait.   We good bro. Oh my god.   I only care about being with Dog she'd be into broke me. It could be she's a different person. Maybe she's just different now Maybe she's more maybe she's grown up. Look at the curls. Hey, shut up to the curl Yeah, yeah, you've got curl say in the comments, but maybe she'd be in just more direct because I don't know I don't like this chat. I mean you do I said chat before you to twitch follow me on twitch You know Sam, but oh my god. Okay, stop talking about these dumb niggas in your science Yeah, I got a story time for y'all bro. I got I got it. I made a teacher cry before a science That's funny, but we don't we can talk about it later. Um, sorry Okay, I'm trying to think check the I think I'm probably my dream you turn on you know Sam. Okay. Um, hold up. Okay So what about the teachers?  So I feel like it's not you know like 400,000 There's a lot of people so the fact that I don't care about the teachers.  Why didn't you ask me to prom? Oh my bro? I Didn't even go to prom, but I was hurt.  I was hurt You know what? I might say I think if I send if I send the editor picture I don't know if I did or not. I might say a picture. I don't know if I'm that bull I was so hurt, bro.  I'm gonna say I'm gonna say I was Scared so I can still help with the next lyric Didn't know what Happened this is this is this is dangerous. This is really dangerous territory. We're trading and this is really dangerous This chick straight said Yeah, I didn't take her bro. Hey, no I was not good. Look. I was it.  I feel like did you go with somebody? I don't know I don't remember. I feel like she went with somebody bro dog Ah Hey date video maybe coming soon to head as I don't know bruh This is just I feel like this is too like am I being pranked by where the cameras?  This is weird to me. This is weird to me.  What do you want, bro? Should I just say something wild I could just put the next lyric.   No these other girls ain't it And then put the lyric in I'm smooth What she said I'm smooth.  Hold up. What's she say? What's he gonna say? What's she gonna say?  Hold up Hold up. Let's see what she said. Let's see what she says Let's see what she says.      No, that's 1600. Wait. It's trippy red. Shit It should be red. It's trippy reds number 1800 or 60. It's 1800, isn't it? I was born with it What I was born with a dick, bro.  I'm finna block her. Yeah, she's getting she's getting blocked I don't even feel like filming this video anymore. I don't even know I'm not even I might not even post I love y'all if I post this. I love y'all so much


look at 7.2 before we go to open. And in 7.2 we will look at B because A is only formula substitution. Here it is given that actually 7.2 should be made separately as a problem. You have two identical systems of the same mass M and specific heat capacity Cp. Temperatures T A and T B, pressure P naught. Final state equilibrium with each other that means some common temperature. Pressure is already common. Process no change of phase, adiabatic and constant temperature, constant pressure. So let us say that we have one system and you have one other system. This is at T A, this is at T B. They work at constant pressure. So this remains at T naught, this remains at T naught. The constant heat capacity so Cp also is common. And all that we will do is we will combine them together. So let them interact and let us extract a work W. What is this W mass? How will you calculate? That is one way, more engineering way of doing it. One you can substitute formula. But if you do change in availability, remember that they are not interacting with the environment at all. Which dead state? They come into equilibrium with each other. So there is no mention of an environment. Environment does not come into picture. They will come to some common temperature. By if we do not do anything, just put them in an isolated environment. All that will happen is A will lose it to B or B will lose it to A till they come to a common temperature T naught. And that is our simple energy balance we can do. Apply first law and do. But then we will find that there is some entropy produced. Entropy produced means you could have obtained some work but which you have not obtained. Suppose what we could have done? We could have imagined a reversible engine working between the two. Assume for example that T a is higher than T b. Then that reversible engine could take a small amount of heat dQ a from a dQ b from reject dQ b to b and do a small amount of work dW. DQ, ratio of dQ a and dQ b will be related to T a and T b. But because these are finite bodies of mass m each, same mass m. Moment dQ is extracted, T a will reduce a bit. You can relate it to dQ and m and C b. dQ b is made available to T b. So you can relate delta T b to dQ b and m and C b. So after the first cycle or the first interaction, T a will reduce, T b will increase not by the same amount because higher energy is extracted, lower heat is provided. So reduction in T a will be higher, increase in T b will be lower. But there will still be some difference and you can continue running the engine till T a becomes equal to T b. But then it will not be T a plus T b by 2 although they are of the same mass and same heat capacity. In fact, the resulting temperature will be nearer T b than to T a because higher amount of heat is extracted from T a, lower amount of heat is made available to T b. The difference is the work done. And you can write down this equation and integrate it and spend two pages of algebra. There is another way of doing it. Apply first law, apply second law. I am not saying apply availability or exergy analysis. Apply first law, apply second law. Let us say that final initial state, one system at T a, another system at T b. Final state both systems at say some temperature T c. A as well as b. What would be the process? For a and b together it should be an adiabatic process. There will be a w and we want our h p to be equal to 0. That means in the process for the whole system delta s should be 0. Now apply first law to the system q equals delta e plus w. What is q? 0. How do you treat delta e plus w? Both are executing constant pressure processes. So that means after some algebra you should be able to show that this is delta h plus w non PDG because they are executing constant pressure processes without a change of phase. So there could be some change in volume. So let us neglect that work saying it is done. So this is w non PDG and this is what we are going to maximize. Is that right? Because when only PDG work is done q is delta h. So this is our first law. What about second law? It is adiabatic. So second law in principle says that q by T whatever plus s p is delta e. This is going to be 0. We want it reversible. So this also is 0. This is given. This is needed to give us maximum work or maximum w non PDG. Now that gives us the following. Delta s is 0 and w non PDG will be equal to minus delta h. Now delta s equals 0 expand in terms of the two systems. They are going to work at constant pressure. There is no change of phase. So system A goes from T a to T c. System B goes from T a to T c. So delta s is going to be equal to m a P p log of T p by T a that is the delta s of the a part plus m b P p log of T c by since this has to be equal to 0 and m a equals m b C p equals C p. This means that T c T c divided by T a T b will be 1. So that means T c equals square root of T a T b. Geometric mean of T a T b. Not arithmetic mean. If we were to just leave it to themselves not extract any work we would have got arithmetic mean. And we know that the geometric mean of two positive numbers is lower than the arithmetic mean. So the mean temperature of the system will now be lower. So whatever is the lower reduction in energy that will be made available at work. And now you substitute this in delta h and you will get w non PDG and that too this will be the maximum will turn out to be minus m P p P a minus T c minus m P p for the second part. Why cannot we apply our standard availability analysis to this? Because there is no heat transfer with the environment that is enforced to be 0. So that is not a variable that we have. But what is it that we have changed? We have changed the end state. See if we were to leave the two systems to themselves they would have reached a temperature T a plus T b by 2. If one were at say 300 Kelvin another way were to be at 600 Kelvin they would have reached 450 Kelvin. But now they are not reaching 450 Kelvin. They are reaching square root of 600 plus 600 into 400. How much is that? 600 multiplied by 300 sorry. They reached 424.3 Kelvin. So that difference between 450 and 424.3 that difference in energy corresponding energy is what is available to us at work. Energy reduces so there is a work out. Any questions on this so far? I am sure you are a bit confused because if you have read something about availability and exergy there is bound to be some difference in nomenclature some difference in terminology. So I think if you take care of that you should appreciate in the end that it is nothing but application of first law and second law. And although jazzy things are only definitions and terminology and any problem can always be solved by routine application of first and second law. Yes sir. Does it mean that if we are not extracting any work then the system is reaching 450 the temperature for example and in this case it is reaching 346. So 424. So what. So 450 it is reaching 424. So whatever the difference between those two energies that is unavailability for this particular system. Yes. See if you do not extract any work this is the lost work. Yes. Lost work you can say is unavailable work but actually it is not unavailable work. It is work which you could have obtained. So I think lost work or unextracted work is a better term rather than unavailable work. Because in Mumbai New York City syllabus they are in every exam they are specifically asking about unavailability. So every time they are asking 4 definitions effectiveness of the industry, availability, reversibility and unavailability. Sorry dead state. I would like to see what those question papers are and more than that I would like to meet the papers later. Sir if the time permits can you explain this unavailability with some T.S diagram. Yes we will come to that when it comes to open systems it will be it will be clear to some extent. So shall we move on to open systems. Now let us look at the same standard analysis for open system. This is the classical exergy analysis and just for simplicity we will assume that a steady state exists and there is one inlet and one exit and we will do what is known as the standard analysis which means end states inlet and particularly exit. Remember that in an open system you should emphasize this to the students that the inlet state is dictated by some other system. So whenever we change an inlet system inlet state is something we just cannot change unless somebody else tells us ok now work with a different inlet system. Whereas our exit system exit state we will provide this is my exit state and now whatever is the next piece of equipment you design and of course the interface pressure is pre decided by mutual discussion as between a boiler and a turbine turbine and a condenser and so on. So our standard analysis we consider an open system single inlet I single exit E and this is our control volume steady state and let us say that we have Q at E and we have from T this is Q naught from T naught and of course there will be some power output W dot S. The so called shaft work we will take care of flow work by using enthalpy first law Q dot minus W dot is m dot into all that. Since it is steady state the same m dot comes in the same m dot goes out.  So Q dot plus Q dot 0 minus W dot S is m dot. Now I will write here delta H plus delta EK plus delta EP. But henceforth I am going to not write this I am not going to neglect it but I am not writing it just for simplification wherever you see delta H you can add delta EK delta EP if they are not significant wherever you see HR you can add VI squared by 2 plus GZI if you feel like and if needed that will just save some time space of course there is no question of saving paper ending here but if you are writing down you will save paper ending. So this we will write as m dot into HE minus second law Q dot by T naught Q dot by T sigma or integral will become Q dot by T plus Q dot naught by T naught. W dot S has nothing to do with second law plus S dot P is m dot into HE minus S. Multiply this by T naught and you will get Q dot into T naught by T plus Q dot 0 plus T naught S dot P is m dot T naught by T minus S. Now we will eliminate Q dot 0 from this equation and this equation by subtracting this equation from this equation and you should get Q dot 1 minus Q naught by T S right that is what we will get from here. This will get eliminated W dot S minus T naught S dot P minus W dot S minus T naught S dot P equal to m dot HE minus HI minus m dot T naught SE minus HI. Now take W dot S on one side and put everything else on the other side and what you will get is an expression quite similar to the earlier one P S. Check that the algebra is alright. Is that right? Now notice that S dot P can only be positive best situation 0. So this T naught S dot P is only going to reduce whatever is the remaining expression. So this expression is maximum power that can be obtained. Again remember standard analysis by keeping the inlet and exit or the end states fixed. The interaction Q at Q dot at T fixed, the only change allowed is Q naught. You are allowed to vary with T naught, vary at T naught. So the only modification allowed is exchange of heat with the environment. What is this? Without the negative sign? We called it lost work there. We will call it lost power. This is maximum power available because of Q naught at T naught. So you can say this is the max power Q naught at T and this you can say because there is a power exergy of Q dot. When generally they talk of exergy, they say exergy of Q dot and they say it depends on the temperature on at which it is available. We should be clear. Thermodynamics says heat is always associated with the temperature level at which it is available. So when you say Q dot, Q dot at T. Only in first law we talk of Q dot. In the second law, the moment it is second law, every Q dot is associated with a temperature. What is this? With the negative sign is the maximum power that can be obtained when the stream goes in at I and comes out at E. This is the maximum power. This is quite often known as the exergetic power. But mind you bring 10 books and 10 papers on availability or exergy, you will have 10 different nomenclatures and 10 different terminology. This is maximum power due to flow of M dot from inlet to exit. And notice that not only does it depend on inlet and exit enthalpies, it also depends on inlet and exit entropies as is expected because second law has been used and the environment temperature T naught. And of course this is loss power. Now nomenclature, this term is quite often written as equal to minus M dot BE minus DI, where B is defined as H minus P naught S and is exergy of flow. So B also is something like a potential, the decrease in which multiplied by M dot gives you the maximum power obtainable because of that flow through an open system. This is perfectly analogous to what we wrote for the closed systems. Now the restriction here is we have considered one inlet one exit. If there are more than one inlet exit, we know how to take care of those terms. Similarly, if it is not a steady state, you will have that D by dt of that phi, that term will also be coming in. You can derive an expression. I derived it like this without taking into account that term just to reduce the clutter. And of course I have reduced clutter. Remember when I say H e here, it is actually H e plus V square by 2 plus G z. Similarly, H i is H i plus V i square by 2 plus G z. Put those terms whenever necessary or whenever needed. Now shall we start looking at exercises or is there a question? Realize that go back if you have written things down, you will find that this expression I will call this y. It is very similar to this earlier expression. Look at the similarity and look at the differences. The similarity becomes striking because this gets replaced by that M dot delta B. Here it is because of change of state of the system. There it is because of change of state of the flow from inlet to exit. And this term also exists. Actually D by dt of this term will exist there. But we have considered a steady state. So, that term does not exist. Otherwise this will also exist there. But even otherwise look at the similarity between the first term, second term, third term here in the expression x, the first term, second term and third term here in the expression y. And you will the similarity is more striking if you replace H e by U e or E e plus P e e. Then there also a E term, a P v term and a T s term. Here also there is a E or U term, a P v term and a T s term. So, as Mandar, Tendulkar says they have reached nano Kelvin. The question still arises is are you sure it is nano Kelvin? There are issues of measurement, not only issues of reaching that, but how do you measure the temperature? That is only deduced. Sir, but this is really where the sum of time we have got. It is, if you look at it, it turns out that it is always better to work at a lower temperature. But T naught, that one conclusion one can always draw is look, why consider T naught as fixed? Consider as variable or adjustable. Adjustable is not easily variable, but you can consider another situation where it is different. But that means for example, Delhi in summer, most of the engineering systems are assumed, assuming T naught of the order of 35, 40. Some days it will even be 45.  So, why not do everything at the North Pole or everything in the Antarctic? Then we will be able to extract more power out of everything. Then there will be other problems, other issues. So, what you are thinking of is 0 Kelvin, but then apparently the interstellar space temperature, you know the background radiation, that is about 4 Kelvin. So, naturally perhaps that is the lowest temperature you can expect to reach. But that means put all our power plants on a huge satellite, let it go far away. Then how do you transmit the power from there to here? How do you make fuel available to that? So, we can think about it. You know such flights of fancies are useful because that leads to science fiction, entertainment. But then again that now that you have brought it up, that also you know reminds me of Arthur Clarke's statement that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. So, today we may consider it magic if something like that can happen. But maybe another few decades, say most of the things which have been presented in science fiction novels, whether that of Jules Verne or even Arthur Clarke, who expired only few years ago. They are coming true. So, whatever was science fiction 50 years ago is almost a fact today. So, nothing wrong in imagining, but we being engineers we should realize the current difficulties in achieving that. Maybe our grandkids will achieve it. It would not be that much difficult for them. Okay, so now let us start looking at exercises. Let me look at 7.2 we have an adiabatic turbine expanding air inlet 8 bar 1200 Kelvin exit 1 bar isentropic efficiency 0.85 air flow rate 2 kg per second inlet 12 bar sorry 8 bar 8 bar 1200 Kelvin exit 1 bar. This is ad-specified adiabatic turbine and of course eta T 0.85. Let us first work our standard problem power output. That is what first thing is on. So, we sketch the T s diagram because it is an air the T s diagram also represents the H s diagram. So, you will have an 1 bar line and we will have a 12 bar line 8 bar line. Let us say this is the inlet state I this is the isentropic exit state E star actual exit state E ideally exit state E star this is 1200 Kelvin. How do you proceed? First we calculate T e star using the isentropic relation T e star by T i is T e by T i raise to gamma minus 1 by gamma. We will assume air to be an ideal gas constant C p. So, here T e is given T i is given T i is known gamma is been assumed. So, that gives us T e star. Now, the isentropic efficiency eta s is given to be 0.85 which turns out to be W dot s divided by W dot s T i star max let us not use the word here which is m dot C p T i minus T e divided by m dot C p T i minus this equals this this equals this. So, the idea is from we have T e star T i m dot and C p we get W s star from W s star we get W s W dot s from W dot s we get T e star divided. So, this gives us this expression gives us both T e as well as W dot s and that solves the problem part A. Now, part B maximum power output for the same inlet and exit solutions. Notice that it is a otherwise adiabatic turbine. So, our Q does not exist Q at T does not exist. So, W dot s e fixed would be by our formula minus m dot B e minus B i or m dot into B i minus B which is equal to m dot into h i minus h e minus T naught s i minus out of which m dot h i minus h e is here is that right W dot s this is equal to W dot s from A first part this part what is second part there is a negative sign here there is a negative sign here. So, I will write plus m dot T naught h e minus h i I have just flipped it around by taking care of this negative sign and I also will write this as instead of s i I will write s e star since s e star is s i look at this figure s e star is s i that is used for definition of isentropic efficient. Now, our W dot now it is not no new principle W dot s max i e fixed will be W dot s plus m dot right m dot T naught now s i h i minus h e star are at the same pressure level. So, there will be C p l n T e by T e star C p l n now in this expression you have already W dot s has been computed in A T naught is given assume 300 k unless otherwise stated m dot is specified C p has been assumed T e has been calculated T e star has been calculated. So, this gives us the answer to this now the question is how will you obtain this maximum power this much power you are obtaining already how do you obtain this power this is the lost power is not it this is maximum this is actual this is the lost power and if you look at the expression it is nothing, but T naught into s dot p because it is an adiabatic turbine s dot p is nothing, but s e minus s i into m dot. So, how will you obtain this think you are given ideal I will give you any amount of ideal pieces of equipment tell me how will you obtain this once you consider that you will realize the difficulty in obtaining this do not talk of weight term use ideal pieces of equipment ideal pieces of equipment are isentropic turbines isentropic compressors heat exchangers with 0 delta T m 0 l m T d you understand what is mean temperature difference of heat exchanger right heat exchangers with 0 l m T d and that means heat transfer with 0 delta T should be possible and the pressure ducts with 0 pressure drop is possible how will you do this these are the ideal components available to you mind you you have to maintain the same inlet and exit condition let me draw this figure T s diagram we had a 1 bar 9 and we had an 8 bar and we expanded it from 8 bar to 1 bar, but like this now we have to keep this I fixed we have to keep this e fixed and we must extract this much amount of power you know how do we go about doing it now we are extracting this much power we must extract this additional power for that additional power additional interaction has to take place where is that interaction and what type that has to be a heat interaction with the ambient so it has to absorb that much energy from the ambient and how will it absorb if you look at it let us say this is the ambient temperature T 0 then the requirement is I will draw it in a different color so that it is clear which one only one term will come that is because delta s is tp ln Te by Te star actually it is minus r ln Te by Te star but this is the same P equals Pe star so this term drops out is that right otherwise I will explain to you in detail let me complete this notice that we have to go from here I to e reversibly so what I do is I use a reversible isentropic expander right up to the ambient temperature then I use an isentropic compressor from ambient temperature to the exit state but since the exit state is at a different entropy these two streams have to be joined together by having an isothermal heating process at the ambient temperature so I will need three ideal components an ideal isentropic turbine to bring it up to ambient temperature then at ambient temperature heat it up so that it reaches the entropy that is needed to go up to e fixed exit state and then at that entropy from ambient temperature whatever is the pressure compress it up to the required pressure of one bar just as an illustration I am assuming that this line happens to be below this but it could even be above this does not matter just for clarity I have shown it like this now imagine how difficult it will be to have an isentropic turbine an isentropic reversible compressor and a 0 delta T heat exchanger at ambient temperature that to at ambient temperature mind you this is the ideal process and the exergy expert tells us that no no no this is what you should do otherwise you are losing this much power as engineers what shall we say shall we try doing this or shall we live with losing this power no but there is something better we can do we can say that look as engineers turbine engineers we will look at it in a slightly different way and that brings us to part c we have taken care of part b here what is part c part c says what is the maximum power output if the turbine way to remain adiabatic mind you when you do this to obtain the maximum power the turbine does not remain adiabatic it has to exchange it with the environment if the turbine way to remain adiabatic that is problem c what we will do is we have one bar we have eight bar so from I we are going to ideal adiabatic we will say that for a turbine engineer turbine designer a better option would be keep adiabatic and do not worry about this this is your going to be your q naught making it non adiabatic keep adiabatic but make it a better and better turbine by reducing irreversibility between it try to bring e to e star if I were to keep it adiabatic the best one is adiabatic reversible which is isentropic so the maximum power is if it expands from I to e star and that answer we have already determined here that is this W s star that is the answer for c mind you those of you who are working with turbine the aim of a turbine designer will always to reach e star rather than to reach this some funny maximum work out so we look at exercise 7.3 we have an adiabatic steam turbine inlet 10 bar 350 degree c exit pressure 1 bar flow rate 5 kg per second calculate the maximum useful power output from an adiabatic steam turbine this is a now what is given to us is the following we have an adiabatic steam turbine and for a part diagram let us say on the T s diagram so this is our f line dry saturated vapor line this is the 1 bar isobar this is 10 bar isobar this is 350 degree c isotherm so this is the state I in part a it is asked what is the maximum useful power output from an adiabatic steam turbine if the inlet state is 10 bar 350 degree c exit pressure is 1 bar flow rate 5 kg per second now in the part a since it is adiabatic the best is reversible and adiabatic and reversible means isentropic yesterday when you have gone through that exercise that the 3 adjectives adiabatic reversible and isentropic are vaguely loosely connected to each other the process which is adiabatic need not be isentropic need not be reversible and anyway but a process which is adiabatic and reversible must be isentropic so any one of the 3 does not imply any of the remaining 2 but any 2 of the 3 automatically means the third one because the relation is like a plus b plus c is 0 if one of them is 0 the other 2 can have appropriate values positive negative 0 but if 2 are 0 a and b then c has to be 0 it has no choice so this means reversible and hence in the case a the process will be like this is e for e so the w.s or w.s max is obtained by grouping an isentropic process from i to e whatever is the inlet state i to the exit pressure e yes it is max because we are restraining it to adiabatic so under adiabatic condition the best thing one can do is make it adiabatic reversible which is isentropic in this case entropy produce would be 0 so this will be maximum possible power output if you constrain it to be adiabatic. Now let us look at the second part in the second part rework the problem if the steam loses 40 kilo joule per kg of heat to the atmosphere which is at 300 k what is the exit state in this case so now in case of b we are told that although we make an effort to keep it insulated it is not insulated so you have an inlet state i which is 10 bar 350 degree pressure you have an exit state which is 1 bar but the thing is not adiabatic there is a q dot which comes from the ambient which is at 300 k and q dot is given as m dot into 40 kilo joule per kg is the m dot specified flow rate is 5 kg per second so 5 into 40 200 kilowatt is the heat lost and this is with a negative sign minus 40 it is lost to the ambient and that means it is no more adiabatic I cannot write q dot equal to 0 so how do you proceed what is the best exit state not isentropic the best exit state is the state which produces no entropy okay so the ideal exit state in this case is the one which produces so with this case remember our first law we say let the exit state be the first law says q dot minus w dot s equals m dot into h i minus h i in this w dot s is to be determined m dot is given h i is known h e is not known what about q dot q dot is given to be minus 40 kilo joule per kilogram into m dot so q dot here turns out to be minus 200 kilowatt so we cannot determine w dot s unless we determine h e so how do you get h e we have to use second law what is second law q by t q dot by t so there is a q dot q dot by t not plus s dot p equals m dot into s e minus s i what is s dot p should be 0 because our basic idea is s dot p is the best for us utopia heavens so now here q dot is known t not is known m dot is known s i is known so you determine s e and now notice how does s e compare with s i s dot p is 0 q dot is negative so s e is lower than s i got it so from here obtain s e exit pressure is known to us so p e s e fixes the exit state which fixes h e from which we get w dot s this thing will be clear when we sketch the t s diagram this is i this is s i but our s e is less than s i since q dot by t not is less than 0 it is losing it so q dot is negative so our s e which is actually the s e star the ideal one already based on s dot p equal to 0 is below s i the actual process would be something like this is that clear now before we proceed one last parting shot that is for an adiabatic turbine w dot s is less than w dot s star and this is known as the isentropic efficient we are already familiar with this for any turbine for that matter any turbine or some similar thing we can also have this w dot s will always be less than or at most equal to w dot s max as determined by our combined first and second law but we know that w dot s max and w dot x star need not be the same that 7.4 as told us so this is another ratio w dot s by w dot s max would be defined this would be less than or equal to 1 this is quite often defined as and this is known as the exergetic efficient another term no new concept it is an exergetic efficient now which efficiency shall we really look at as exergy engineers we should always look at this because this is the maximum you could have obtained you have obtained only this so this must be the exergetic efficient but a turbine engineer will always look at it because a turbine engineer knows that look I have to have my turbine adiabatic with absolutely no point in extending it so maximum I can do is isentropic turbine so a turbine engineer will always look at isentropic efficient we will not look at exergetic efficient because as an engineer that is what one has to aim for he will well insulate the turbine he will not say let there be some heat loss I will run a heat engine between that and the atmosphere he will not worry about and finally one should draw a line and so something like this if this is 0 this is positive and this is negative on this side we have turbine produce power on this side we have compressor pump etc. with need to be driven they absorb power nw.t will be here nw.t star I am writing t because I am writing it for a turbine so this will be less than this or at most equal to these two depending on the condition may be higher or lower and hence the ratio of this this goes in the numerator this goes in the denominator whenever we define an efficiency when it comes to a compressor the relative location is the same thing but both are negated w.c w.c star w.c the so called max but it is an algebraic maximum it is not a numerical maximum numerically it may be a minimum the relation is still less than like this but here both are positive here both are negative and hence when it comes to defining efficiencies of any kind it is w.t by w.t star or w.t divided by w.t max because psychologically we are whenever we say something is an efficiency we want it to be a number less than or equal to 1 that is why for refrigerators we say COP we do not call it efficiency refrigerators but since both are negative in magnitude w.c will be higher than that of w.c star or w.c max so when it comes to efficiency here we define it as w.c star by w.t or by w.c max by w.c this diagram I think if you show then there is no confusion about why one efficiency definition it is sort of reciprocal of the other efficiency definition but the less than remains always less than but in an algebraic sense here it may be 1000 ideal 800 real but both are positive here it may be 1000 ideal but minus 1000 the real may be minus 1200 it is lower than minus 1000 magnitude wise it is higher hence for efficiency we put it the other way yes sir. Sometime a term used second law efficient. That is exergetic efficiency also it is sometime known as second law efficient. Excuse me sir is it possible to get exotic efficiency as one in principle yes if you for example if you are talking of isentropic efficiency make the turbine run as isentropic in that case you will get isentropic efficiency one or in case of a general process where you may be talking about exergetic efficiency make the whole process run as a reversible process in that case you will get the second law efficiency or the exergetic efficiency to be one. Notice that both a isentropic reversible process which means a zero entropy producing process or a zero entropy production process any other kind is a thermodynamically utopian process ideal it is used only as a reference engineers will achieve for example from an isentropic over the here the isentropic efficiencies of the turbine must have gone up from 0.7 to 0.8 may be slightly higher than 0.8 but as you start approaching the ideality the cost goes up so if you look at any process and plot it this is positive this is negative and here you put cost so a turbine a very simple turbine not much of technologically advanced one will produce loss of entropy but will not cost much but the same turbine if you try to make it jazzier less entropy producing more isentropic efficiency the cost will shoot up as you come to near reversibility will shoot up to such high values that the management says that look it is too costly people will prefer to have a slightly inefficient turbine at a much less price than a efficient turbine at may be 10 times the cost and this zone is impossibility whatever you invest this is impossible you turbine with negative entropy production is just not possible why turbine nozzle anything anything someone who does not understand the second law we try to design nozzles which work here but they do not work on paper you can do anything you can make it work which one entropy entropy production is 0 exit entropy is lower than inlet entropy so that is there just to indicate that one should not have a mental set that ideal case means exit entropy equal to inlet entropy that is only in case of adiabatic if you are losing it ideal exit state is like to be at a lower entropy than the inlet exit state is that ok now. Sir for the reversible adiabatic process isentropic efficiency and the exotic efficiency matches. For a reversible adiabatic process reversible adiabatic process means ideal process that means n s dot p is 0 and that means both the definition both the efficiencies will be one when they will match I think they will definitely match when they are one but I do not know whether they will match in some other cases also they may accidentally they may but naturally when one when an efficiency is 0 by any definition it will be 0 when efficiency is 1 I think by any reasonable definition any reasonable definition efficiency is 0 but this is where thermodynamics sort of diverges from engineering you know actually basic thermodynamics does not comment it says this is what is possible this is what is not possible it is the when you do exergy analysis you say that look this is the best possible and you should try to approach it that is where engineers are likely to differ a turbine engineer will look at an ideal turbine in a different way and exergy engineer will look at an ideal turbine in a different way and when it comes to real engineer real engineer will always be comfortable with economy so you will have a figure like this you will understand that it makes sense to produce lower entropy but it does cost more money to do it and in an environment of competition you have to always see what your competitors are doing and telling so I think we stop here