Written 10 September 1999 in response to a friend’s inquiry about a group calling itself Entropy Systems. The group claims that they have:

“...developed engine technology that produces power, by absorbing heat from atmospheric air, that can be at any temperature (even sub-zero)... In other words ESI engines are Room Temperature Superconductors of heat. ESI engines require no cryogenic liquids or any fuel storage systems and can be used to run Automobiles, Boats, Lawnmowers and Generators” (ESI Press Release dated 7 September 1999).

Here’s my thoughts on the whole thing. It’s long winded, but I don’t suppose that would surprise anyone who knows me. Basically, what I get out of it is that they are violating several principles and laws of thermodynamics and physics under the guise of something new. As your surmised, it is just someone else hawking not only a perpetual motion machine, but one which provides something for nothing: it claims to not only absorb the heat from the surrounding air, but also cool it. Free refrigeration.

Background
I was just doing from refresher reading on entropy (including reading on ESI’s site), and one of the laws is that, as a principle, the universe will tend to reach a state of maximum entropy (sometimes called disorder or randomness). An interesting consequence here that occurred to me is that this leaves physics no explanation for the formation of the universe. If the law of entropy is correct, stars would never form (they represent order, not chaos), and neither would planets. Put another way, according to the idea behind entropy, order is improbable. The only explanation offered on that web site is that gravity can affect entropy, which represents a paradox of its own (see below). One of the problems I have with the whole entropy thing is that it involves the use of statistics, that item about which Benjamin Disraeli commented, “There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.”

The Gravity and Entropy Paradoxes
On their site, I see a paradox for which this group offers no solution:

Boltzmann puzzled over the contradictions of a rich, ordered universe and of the second law of thermodynamics. The universe is a closed system by definition. It is also the largest possible system. Never can the second law of thermodynamics be more statistically certain than when applied to the entire universe. The entropy of the universe must increase irreversibly every second.

Elsewhere on their site:

In the last decade of the twentieth century,  new discoveries in the science of thermodynamics like that of the Amin Cycle, reveal to us that entropy can be reduced by gravity. Gravity is the catalyst in reducing entropy. Strong gravitational forces reduce entropy of matter in the universe.

The paradox is that gravity is usually associated with large bodies (mass). So, unless you can pull together a large body which can exert gravity in the first place, how are you supposed to change entropy? On the web site, the group quotes Boltzmann, who ran into the same problem, but here too they try to dismiss his paradox by introducing gravity.

Boltzmann’s generation of physicists were haunted by the specter of Warmestod’s heat-death universe. It was predicted that all forms of energy would ultimately degrade into heat and all temperature differences would even out. Then entropy would be at a maximum. The heat-death of the universe would contain just as much energy as it does now, but all the energy would be unavailable. Nothing interesting could happen. The heat-death would entail the extinction of all the stars. It would mean the end of all life. But when the nineteenth century physicists and thermodynamicists formulated these theories they did not have the broader picture and ignored many parameters like gravitation, which, when introduced inside their theories, change the picture completely.

To be fair, this group is talking about gravitation as induced by acceleration, as opposed to the gravitation of a massive object. Regardless, even if gravitation does impact entropy, it still doesn’t explain my musing in the first paragraph, about how the massive object got formed in the first place. Modern physics can only point out that it is probable that two objects would be attracted, and then attract a third, ad infinitum. Statistics again.

THE AMIN CYCLE
Per this group’s site, there are four steps to this process

1. The gas inside the enclosure is first rotated to a  higher speed while keeping its volume constant.
2. The gas inside the enclosure is then compressed by a piston while the speed of rotation is kept constant.
3. The speed of rotation of the gas inside the enclosure is reduced while keeping its volume constant.
4. The gas inside the enclosure is now expanded while the lower speed of rotation is kept constant.

Analysis of the cycle
There are a couple of principles they’re trying to address here. One has to do with the direction of energy. That is, heat is without direction, so it is impossible to convert all the heat to energy in a given system through mechanical means; some of the molecular motion goes into the cylinder walls, rather into the piston. By rotating the gas in a cylinder, they are trying to fool the reader into believing that they are being more efficient by addressing the direction of the energy. Another of their claims is that, “The changes in kinetic energy of the gas are done at constant volume and constant temperature.” As I’ll point out below, this is impossible.

Step 1. This step obviously involves introducing significant amounts of energy into the system, to drive this rotation. Furthermore, this rotation will introduce heat (through several friction points, most notably the gas being compressed between the blades and the cylinder wall), and change the pressure inside the cylinder. The mixing will further ensure that this temperature increase is uniform throughout the gas in the cylinder. To rotate all the gas in the cylinder, a paddle blade or other mechanical obstacle is required. Merely rotating the cylinder wall would not cause the gases in the center to rotate. Try it with a glass of water and you’ll see what I mean.

A principle of aerodynamics is that the higher the velocity, the lower the pressure. Bernoulli was one of the first to recognize this, and it is often used in venturis. If you look down on a cylinder, the velocity is a function of the radius. Obviously, this velocity reaches a maximum at the outer edge of the compressor blades. That said, however, it is important to note that the pressure at the cylinder wall will be high because of the boundary layer. The velocity at the cylinder wall is zero, and you have a rotating blade some small distance away, creating friction and heat. Read about whirlpools and water, below, for more information. This group claims that the pressure will be greater at the cylinder walls, creating a partial vacuum at the center. If you are wondering whether this is similar to gas turbines, remember that they compress gases along their axis, not radially.

Water and Whirlpools
You might be tempted to think of a large, rotating mixer filled with water, and how a whirlpool is formed with a “hole” at the center. Note, however, that the whirlpool is widest at the top and collapsed at the bottom of the bowl, forming a sort of inverted cone. This tells me that the weight of the water has something to do with it, and that gravity (not just acceleration) is involved. When you start moving water, its velocity goes up, and its pressure goes down. That leaves ambient air pressure as a constant to push down into the moving water, forming the inverted cone. So, what happens if you rotate in a sealed container, preventing the ambient pressure from forming the whirlpool? Back to the open top for a moment, when you create the whirlpool, the water level at the outside edges, at the walls, actually rises because the moving water molecules are interacting with the stationary cylinder wall. That kinetic energy has to go somewhere, and the easiest place is to raise the water level. If you put a top on this cylinder of water, with no air above it, the water has no place to go except back to the center of the cylinder. This group is using a gas, so the only possible effect can be compression of the gas, which creates heat, contradicting their claim of an increase in kinetic energy at a constant temperature.

Net Result: Lots of energy input required, but zero benefit.

Step 2. This step also requires the introduction of energy from outside the area of interest (the goings-on in the cylinder). Compressing a gas introduces considerable heat. This is, in fact, the principle on which the compression-ignition (i.e. diesel) engine works. A critical claim made by this group is that there must be a partial vacuum in front of this piston due to the rotating gas. This is critical because they rely on having to put less power into the compression stroke than they get out during their expansion stroke. As I explained in Step 1, this vacuum isn’t possible. Any decrease in volume necessarily equates to an increase in temperature, no matter how slowly the gas is compressed. The increase is less when the compression is slower, but it still exists.

Net Result: Even more energy input required. Ever hear of pumping losses?

Step 3. In this step, they stop mixing and/or compressing the gas, nothing else happens. Depending on the rotational speed they claim to maintain, the effect will either be to ensure that all of the gas is the same temperature or possibly the addition of heat, again due to friction.

Net Result: You’ve reduced the energy rate you’re putting into the system.

Step 4. Expanding a gas will cause its temperature to decrease significantly, and more importantly, it requires energy. That is, unless you can demonstrate that the pressure inside the cylinder is higher than the ambient pressure, you have to put even more energy into the system. Assuming the pressure is higher inside (they just compressed it in step two), of course it will want to expand and cool. For the first time, they cylinder is doing something besides absorb energy. Unfortunately, it’s just trying to equalize the pressure inside with the ambient.

Net Result: You now cool the gas on which you’ve just expended all that energy. Where’s the work?

In short, I find it almost amusing that this group claims to be using physics and thermodynamics when it breaks the most basic laws. It’s scary what some people will try to do by claiming to have invented something new.

Matt

Back to the Warner Technology Consulting Home Page


PGP Encryption Available for secured messages. Public key is available at MIT’s site or here.