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 (It ought to be pointed out that the paper appears on the pre-print server arXiv, so has not been peer reviewed.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

The God Game (SF) - Danny Tobey *****

Wow. I'm not sure I've ever read a book that was quite such an adrenaline rush - certainly it has been a long time since I've read a science fiction title which has kept me wanting to get back to it and read more so fiercely. 

In some ways, what we have here is a cyber-SF equivalent of Stephen King's It. A bunch of misfit American high school students face a remarkably powerful evil adversary - though in this case, at the beginning, their foe appears to be able to transform their worlds for the better.

Rather than a supernatural evil, the students take on a rogue AI computer game that thinks it is a god - and has the powers to back its belief. Playing the game is a mix of a virtual reality adventure like Pokemon Go and a real world treasure hunt. Players can get rewards for carrying out tasks - delivering a parcel, for example, which can be used to buy favours, abilities in the game and real objects. But once you are in the game, it doesn't want to let you go and is …

Uncertainty - Kostas Kampourakis and Kevin McCain ***

This is intended as a follow-on to Stuart Firestein's two books, the excellent Ignorance and its sequel, Failure, which cut through some of the myths about the nature of science and how it's not so much about facts as about what we don't know and how we search for explanations. The authors of Uncertainty do pretty much what they set out to do in explaining the significance of uncertainty and why it can make it difficult to present scientific findings to the public, who expect black-and-white facts, not grey probabilities, which can seem to some like dithering.

However, I didn't get on awfully well with the book. A minor issue was the size - it was just too physically small to hold comfortably, which was irritating. More significantly, it felt like a magazine article that was inflated to make a book. There really was only one essential point made over and over again, with a handful of repeated examples. I want something more from a book - more context and depth - that …

Where are the chemistry popular science books?

by Brian Clegg
There has never been more emphasis on the importance of public engagement. We need both to encourage a deeper interest in science and to counter anti-scientific views that seem to go hand-in-hand with some types of politics. Getting the public interested in science both helps recruit new scientists of the future and spreads an understanding of why an area of scientific research deserves funding. Yet it is possible that chemistry lags behind the other sciences in outreach. As a science writer, and editor of this website, I believe that chemistry is under-represented in popular science. I'd like to establish if this is the case, if so why it is happening - and what can be done to change things. 


An easy straw poll is provided by the topic tags on the site. At the time of writing, there are 22 books under 'chemistry' as opposed to 97 maths, 126 biology and 182 physics. The distribution is inevitably influenced by editorial bias - but as the editor, I can confirm …