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 (It ought to be pointed out that the paper appears on the pre-print server arXiv, so has not been peer reviewed.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 AndrĂ©, 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

Patricia Fara - Four Way Interview

Patricia Fara lectures in the history of science at Cambridge University, where she is a Fellow of Clare College. She was the President of the British Society for the History of Science (2016-18) and her prize-winning book, Science: A Four Thousand Year History (OUP, 2009), has been translated into nine languages. An experienced public lecturer, Patricia Fara appears regularly in TV documentaries and radio programmes. She also contributes articles and reviews to many popular magazines and journals, including History Today, BBC History, New Scientist, Nature and the Times Literary SupplementHer new book is Erasmus Darwin.

Why history of science?
I read physics at university, but half-way through the course I realised that had been a big mistake. Although I relished the intellectual challenge, I was bored by the long hours spent lining up recalcitrant instruments in dusty laboratories. Why was nobody encouraging us to think about the big questions – What is gravity? Does quantum mechani…

The Idea of the Brain: Matthew Cobb *****

Matthew Cobb is one of those people that you can’t help but admire but also secretly hate just a little bit for being so awesome. He is professor for zoology at the University of Manchester with a sizable teaching load that he apparently masters with consummate skill. He’s a scientific researcher, who researches the sense of smell of fruit fly maggots; I kid you not!  He’s also an attentive and loving family father but he still finds time and energy to write brilliant history of science books, three to date. His first, The Egg and Sperm Race, describes the search for the secret of human reproduction in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and is one of my favourite history of science books, on the period. His second, Life’s Greatest Secret is a monster, both in scope and detail, description of the hunt to decipher the structure and function of DNA that along the way demolishes a whole boatload of modern history of science myths. The most recent, and the subject of this review, is

The Search for Life on Mars - Elizabeth Howell and Nicholas Booth ***

From the book’s enticing subtitle, ‘The Greatest Scientific Detective Story of All Time’, I was expecting something rather different. I thought the authors would kick off by introducing the suspects (the various forms life might take on Mars, either now or in the past) and the kind of telltale traces they might leave, followed by a chronological account of the detectives (i.e. scientists) searching for those traces, ruling out certain suspects and focusing on others, turning up unexpected new clues, and so on. But the book is nothing like that. Continuing with the fiction analogy, this isn’t a novel so much as a collection of short stories – eleven self-contained chapters, each with its own set of protagonists, suspects and clues.

Some of the chapters work better than others. I found the first three – which despite their early placement cover NASA’s most recent Mars missions – the most irritating. For one thing, they unfold in a way that’s at odds with the cerebral ‘detective story’ na…