Skip to main content

Feature - Don't put your money in perpetual motion, Mrs Worthington

Apparent perpetual motion machine on the cover
of a 1920 issue of Popular Science magazine
(image from Wikipedia)
Physicists dismiss perpetual motion machines and 'free energy' devices out of hand. Some consider this a lack of open-mindedness, but in reality it's just that the physicists understand the second law of thermodynamics.

The second law is often stated as 'in a closed system, heat moves from a hot to a cold body' (there's another definition using entropy, we'll come onto in a moment). That's the basis at some point in the chain of every way we source energy, from a clean, green wind turbine to a dirty diesel. And, for that matter, it applies to the way your body uses energy too. Such is the respect for the second law that one of the UK's top astrophysicists of the first half of the twentieth century, Arthur Eddington, wrote:

If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations [James Clerk’s masterpiece that describe how electromagnetism works] – then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation – well these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in the deepest humiliation.

So there has been some excitement in the press since a paper from last November pointed out a circumstance where the second law appears to be broken. (It ought to be pointed out that the paper appears on the pre-print server arXiv, so has not been peer reviewed. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it, just needs noting.)

Of itself, there's nothing odd about heat moving from a colder to a hotter body. It's what a fridge does, after all. But this can only happen if energy is supplied to make it happen - this is what the 'closed system' bit of the definition precludes. What was interesting in the  described experiment is that heat was transferred spontaneously from 'colder' to 'hotter'. (I'll come back to those inverted commas soon), which is what you need for perpetual motion and free energy.

What physicist Roberto Serra of the Federal University of ABC in Santo André, Brazil and the University of York, with his colleagues, did was to get molecules of chloroform - a simple organic compound where a carbon atom has one hydrogen and three chlorine atoms attached - into a special state. The hydrogen atom and the carbon atom in a molecule had one of their properties - spin - correlated, giving them a kind of linkage. The hydrogen atom was in a higher energy state than the carbon, making the hydrogen technically hotter. And without outside help, as the correlation decayed, heat was transferred from the carbon to the hydrogen. From colder to hotter.

To understand why this happened requires the alternative definition of the second law involving entropy. Entropy is a measure of the disorder in a system. The more entropy, the more disorder. And the second law can be stated as the entropy in a closed system will either stay the same or increase. If the entropy decreases it's like heat going from cold to hot.

Entropy is measured by the number of different ways the components of a system can be organised. So, for example, a book has much lower entropy than a version with all the words in a random scrambled form. There are far more ways to arrange the words randomly than to form the specific book. (Imagine dropping the words randomly on a page - they are far more likely not to be in the order in the book.) This is why the second law also says it's more likely to break something than to unbreak it.

In the case of the chloroform experiment, entropy decreases because there are more ways to arrange the quantum states when they are correlated than when the correlation goes away - it's a bit like there being more ways to throw a six with two dice together than with two dice individually.

But free energy enthusiasts don't need to get too excited. Although there does appear to have been a spontaneous reduction in entropy, getting the molecules into the right state to start with would have taken far more energy than could be extracted. It's not a free source of energy.

The moral still is - don't buy a perpetual motion machine.



Comments

  1. I'm puzzled. If the transition from correlated to uncorrelated occurs spontaneously, does it release energy? If so, that energy will warm the environment and increase its temperature. If not, why does it happen?

    I remain confident that any claim to have demonstrated a spontaneous decrease in the total entropy of the universe will be refuted on closer analysis.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As I mention at the end, there's inevitably lots of energy required to get things into the right state, so the universe is just fine.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Rockets and Rayguns - Andrew May ****

The Cold War period saw dramatic developments in science and technology, coinciding with the flourishing of the science fiction genre. In Rockets and Rayguns, Andrew May draws on the parallels between reality and fiction, each influencing the other.

Inevitably a major Cold War theme was the threat of nuclear war, and May opens with the bomb. It's fascinating that fiction got there first - nuclear weapons were featured in science fiction when many physicists were still doubting the practicality of using nuclear energy. Of course, it's a lot easier to simply take a concept and dream up a weapon than it is to make it for real - for example, H. G. Wells' prophetic nuclear bombs from his 1914 The World Set Free were nothing like the real thing. And some science fiction devices concepts - notably ray guns and force fields - came to very little in reality. However this doesn't prevent the parallels being of interest.

May gives us a mix of the science - describing how nuclear we…

Galileo Galilei, the Tuscan Artist – Pietro Greco ****

Near the beginning of John Milton’s epic poem Paradise Lost, he refers to a ‘Tuscan artist’ viewing the Moon through an optic glass. He’s talking about Galileo – one of history’s greatest scientists, but not the most obvious person to slap an ‘artist’ label on. Yet Galileo lived at a time – the Renaissance – when it was fashionable to dabble impartially in both the arts and sciences. Look up ‘Renaissance man’ on Wikipedia and you’ll see Galileo’s picture right there underneath Leonardo da Vinci’s. It’s a less well-known side to his life, but it crops up again and again – interspersed among his many scientific achievements – in this excellent new biography by Pietro Greco.

If you’re looking for interesting trivia, you’ll find plenty in this book. Galileo’s father was a musician with scientific leanings, who carried out some of the first experiments on musical acoustics – which Galileo may have assisted with. As a young professor of mathematics, Galileo delivered a couple of lectures on …

Meet Your Bacteria - Nicola Temple and Catherine Whitlock ***

There have been a good number of books on our microbiome - the bacteria and other tiny organisms living in our body - from The Wild Life of Our Bodies throughI, Superorganism to I Contain Multitudes. Each of these is a traditional popular science book format, and all, to some degree, suffer from the same problem - in part, they have a tendency to present collections of facts, little more than bullet points of information strung together, rather than providing an effective narrative. As Meet Your Bacteria is in a significantly different format, there was a chance to imbue the subject with more dynamism and interest.'

When I first looked at the book, I assumed from its shape and cover that it would be in the style of highly illustrated, two-page spreads with large illustrations and the text little more than captions. In reality, Nicola Temple and Catherine Whitlock manage to subvert that format - it is, indeed, presented as a series of separate two-page spreads, but there is far more…