Slashdot Mirror


Heat Engines Shrunk By Seven Orders of Magnitude

KentuckyFC writes "The vast majority of motors that power our planes, trains, and automobiles are heat engines. They rely on the rapid expansion of gas as it heats up to generate movement. But attempts to shrink them by any significant amount have mostly ended in failure. Today, the smallest heat engines have a volume of some 10^7 cubic micrometers. Now group of Dutch engineers has built a heat engine that is seven orders of magnitude smaller than this. The engine consists of a piezoelectric bar that expands and contracts in the normal piezoelectric way. However it also heats up and cools at the same time causing a thermal expansion and contraction, which lags the piezoelectric displacement. By carefully choosing the frequency of the driving AC current, the Dutch team found a resonant effect in which the thermal expansion and contraction amplifies the mechanical motion, making it a true heat engine. Operating the thermodynamic cycle in reverse turns the device into a heat pump or refrigerator. The total volume of the device is just 0.5 cubic micrometres."

40 of 168 comments (clear)

  1. Re:what about my car... by Parlett316 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yeah a Beowulf cluster of them

  2. Re:On Chip cooling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's not like a heat pump turns heat into nothing. One side of a heat pump gets cold, the other side gets hot. At half a micron across, it's hard to see how such a device could help evacuate heat from a CPU.

  3. Heat engine != internal combustion engine by Dilligent · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Somehow "heat engine" directly translates into "internal combustion engine" for me. But this piece uses electricity, exactly how useful is that? This is bound to be less efficient than to use the electricity to just power an ordinary electric motor. I suppose scaling a motor down to that size might be kinda difficult, though, if that was the point, why emphasize that it is a heat engine?

    1. Re:Heat engine != internal combustion engine by Scrameustache · · Score: 5, Informative

      Somehow "heat engine" directly translates into "internal combustion engine" for me.

      That's too bad, I hope this article will be enough to let you correct your thought

      why emphasize that it is a heat engine?

      Because they figure it's mostly usefull as a heat pump, not as a mechanical actuator.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    2. Re:Heat engine != internal combustion engine by qazwart · · Score: 4, Informative

      The internal combustion engine is only one class of heat engines. The Sterling Engine and the External Combustion Engine (used in old steam locomotives) are also heat engines. Heat engines use heat to create power either by taking advantage of temperature differences or the expansion of heated air.

    3. Re:Heat engine != internal combustion engine by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Informative

      Somehow "heat engine" directly translates into "internal combustion engine" for me.

      A steam engine is an external combustion engine, yet is is still a heat engine. The thing with this teensy engine is that it reuses waste heat rather than throwing it away, making it far more efficient than your ordinary electric motor.

      As a side note, the difference between a motor and an engine is that a motor rotates, an engine reciprocates. You can indeed have an electric engine (theyre usually called "solenoids") and a gasoline motor (Mazda had "rotary engines" back in the '70s; they were actually gasoline motors.)

    4. Re:Heat engine != internal combustion engine by YttriumOxide · · Score: 2, Informative

      Mazda had "rotary engines" back in the '70s; they were actually gasoline motors.

      Had? Wouldn't "have had ... since" be more accurate? (oh, and it's since 1963, so the '60s...)

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
    5. Re:Heat engine != internal combustion engine by sammy+baby · · Score: 2, Insightful

      (Mazda had "rotary engines" back in the '70s; they were actually gasoline motors.)

      Sir, poorly played. You should never pass up the opportunity to use the word "Wankel" in a sentence.

    6. Re:Heat engine != internal combustion engine by jbengt · · Score: 4, Informative

      As a side note, the difference between a motor and an engine is that a motor rotates, an engine reciprocates.

      Huh. I didn't know that.

      Not surprising that you didn't know that, since it isn't true.
      An engine is a machine that does work using a source of energy like the coiled rope of a catapult or the tank of gas for your internal combustion engine.
      A motor is an engine that moves something, like, say, a motorcycle.

  4. Re:Beer cans? by AaxelB · · Score: 4, Funny

    How many beer cans fit in a 0.5 micrometers refrigerator?

    Depends. Are we talking micro- or macrobrews?

  5. Re:what is a cubic micrometer by Red+Flayer · · Score: 5, Informative

    You know how big a millimeter is, right? A micrometer is one thousandth the length of a millimeter.

    A cubic micrometer is the volume occupied by a cube one micrometer on each side.

    10^7 cubic micrometers would fill a cube about one-fifth of a millimeter on a side. Smaller than a pinhead.

    --
    "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  6. Re:Usefulness? by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Funny

    It is so small that it produces a very minimal amount of horsepower, which is not useful for any actual way.

          Unless of course you have several billion of them on a gram sized object. If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  7. Re:what is a cubic micrometer by Atraxen · · Score: 4, Informative

    Fun fact - Wolfram Alpha can serve as your 'self-checkout line' for things like this.
    http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1+cubic+micrometer

    Here's a bit of scale - a cubic micrometer is about the same size as a calibration bead for microscopy. A red blood cell is about 8 micrometers across. http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/begin/cells/scale/ Or, there's this video showing the "powers of ten" (also its title...): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2cmlhfdxuY

    Also, chemists work at these dimensions, too! (So do biologists. And others.) :*P Don't snub the other disciplines!!! Or I'll weep. And not gently, nor to a guitar.

    --
    Be careful of your thoughts; they could become words at any minute...
  8. Re:Usefulness? by gurps_npc · · Score: 5, Interesting
    No. You have made a critical error in thinking. You need to think relativity wise. Scale changes how much power we need. As of yet we don't have many small things that need small amounts of power because we have NOT had the engine. Now that we have the small heat engine, it will allow us to develop small devices that use it.

    Assuming we had micro engines, we can take full advantege of many things that are better smaller than bigger.

    For example, a small device that turns heat into power could power an IMPLANTABLE MEDICAL DEVICE using the bodies own heating/cooling systems? No more changing the battery for the pacemaker every

    Then there are small flying devices. I am sure the military would love a flying camera the size of a real fly that uses the solar heat of the sun to power it.

    Then there are phones and musical devices. Want one that uses half of its' own waste heat to recharge itself, perhaps doubling battery life?

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  9. Re:On Chip cooling? by coolsnowmen · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Already done: see peltier device. They are already made to the correct size and probably better efficiency.
    http://www.peltier-info.com/
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_cooling

  10. Re:what is a cubic micrometer by xaxa · · Score: 3, Informative

    about one-fifth of a millimeter on a side

    That's about the thickness of a sheet of paper. (Round here, and probably in a lot of the world, the thickness and density of paper is specified, for instance "160 g/m^2, 200 micrometres".)

  11. Re:Reeedeeeculous by Guppy · · Score: 2, Informative

    So as you shrink things, pretty soon, you can't start a fire. The fire loses heat over its surface area faster than itrs volume can generate it.
    Which is why you don't see flames smaller than a certain, much larger than micrometer, size.

    So if I'm understanding this argument correctly, the limitation can also be understood in terms of the time window available in which to extract the energy decreases, as the engine scales down. At a material level, the heat dissipation has a limit as well -- for conduction, it can't be any faster than the speed of sound (within the material comprising the engine).

    While we don't have any information on the frequency at which the piezo engine operates, it could be very high, allowing for nearly instant energy extraction. We could possibly be approaching the limit at which the two limitations compete.

  12. Re:Another way to save gas by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Funny

    If the heat were produced externally it would be a sort of Stirling engine. So I guess one this size would be Sterling sliver.

  13. Re:Reeedeeeculous by ThreeGigs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And I despair of the lack of English education, specifically reading comprehension.

    This isn't internal combustion, which is what your argument is based on. It uses the fact that solids expand and contract when heated and cooled, including some piezo materials.

    Please read the summary *again*.

  14. Re:Reeedeeeculous by sunking2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's almost as pathetic as the idiots who assume heat engine == combustion engine.

  15. Re:Beer cans? by krnpimpsta · · Score: 4, Funny

    You're thinking too small.

    The correct question is, how many beer kegs fit in a 0.5 micrometer fridge?

    0.00000000000000000852167911 beer kegs

    If the fridge interior happens to be shaped optimally so that no space is wasted and the entire 0.5 micrometer fridge is filled with keg, then.. exactly 8.52167911 * 10^-18 beer kegs (if each keg is 15.5 gallons). [Incase someone wants to out-pedant me: Yeah, I understand you can't optimally shape a 0.5 micrometer fridge for a keg, when the size of 1 unit of keg > 0.5 micrometer fridge.]

    Citation: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=(0.5+micrometers%5E3)%2F(1+keg)&aq=f&aql=&aqi=&oq=

    --

    New webcomic updated on Sundays: HERE

  16. 0.5 cubic micrometres?! by Phizzle · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So thats like much smaller than a womp rat!

    --
    I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
  17. Re:Reeedeeeculous by SoVeryTired · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's the basic SCALING LAW that Galilleo figured out like 600 years ago.

    As you make things smaller, their volume, which is their abilitry to burn fuel, goes down as the CUBE of its linear dimension.

    But its surface area, which is how it loses heat, only goes down as the square.

    That'd be Newton's law of cooling, no more than 300 years old.

    --
    Slashdot: news for Apple. Stuff that Apple.
  18. Re:what is a cubic micrometer by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yes, someone explain how many of them would fit into the library of congress.

    A metric assload.

    --
    Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
  19. Re:Usefulness? by Thelasko · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As an engineer that works with heat engines. I don't see what is so difficult about making a small heat engine. However, if one were to make a heat engine seven orders of magnitude smaller, with the same efficiency of a full sized heat engine... THAT would be an accomplishment!

    Unfortunately, both the article and the summary have left out that detail...

    --
    One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
  20. Re:what is a cubic micrometer by iapetus · · Score: 4, Funny

    That's no help - most Slashdotters are American. What's that in imperial assloads?

    --
    ++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
    Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
  21. Re:On Chip cooling? by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It always amuses me when people try to raise performance as a point against a first generation lab prototype vs. a tenth generation refined technology in production. The question is not whether these piezoelectric heat engines/pumps are more efficient than peltiers now, but rather can they be more efficient than peltiers in the future after further development, or is there a foreseeable upper limit to the technology that makes such an application unlikely even with development?

    There *is* a need for heat reduction at very small scales, especially in mobile devices or even the implant devices of the future. Of course heat has to go somewhere, the only issue is that the destination of the heat be better able to deal with it than the source.

    --
    I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
  22. Re:Reeedeeeculous by kgskgs · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What has happened to Slashdot? Who do you have to be a Guru in every subject to read Slashdot?

    Looks like gone are the days when all you needed to good discussions on Slashdot was genuine curiosity and decent , not necessarily perfect, grasp of English language. And no, being a know-all, done-all master of the universe was not required either.

    While I can perfectly understand saying "You are making a mistake" or "That's not what the article says", I have never really understood calling someone pathetic for not knowing something.

    The range of topics covered here is very wide and I don't know abc of several things discussed here. Does that make me stupid and pathetic?

  23. Re:Did someone say pump? by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If you've got a thing that small, it's time to give up on it...

  24. Re:what is a cubic micrometer by mdm-adph · · Score: 2, Informative

    That's "U.S. Customary" assloads, Loyalist swine.

    --
    It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
  25. Re:Reeedeeeculous by AaxelB · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The range of topics covered here is very wide and I don't know abc of several things discussed here. Does that make me stupid and pathetic?

    The key point is that you recognize that you don't know everything about the topic at hand. The post that sunking2 was responding to was essentially a spew of vitriol against the researchers, claiming that it's impossible to make such a small engine with any sort of efficiency, and that they're stupid and ignorant for even trying. According to that post's replies, the writer is completely wrong and doesn't know some basic facts about the subject they're yelling about.

    So, no, you're not at all stupid and pathetic for not knowing everything about everything, and I'm in the same boat with you (I've learned a fair amount from this story's discussion), but neither of us is telling everyone (including the Dutch engineers in question) that they're stupid and don't know what they're talking about.

  26. Re:what is a cubic micrometer by Thud457 · · Score: 4, Funny

    WRONG!

    Library of Congresses are a perfectly cromulent unit of volume. Just because the necessary measurements to derive the value are not easily google-able doesn't invalidate that fact.

    In the past, when deriving the conversion from Library of Congresses to BTU's, we've used the assumption that we're talking about the books that make up the Library of Congress, not the building itself. This is because, back in the mists of time, Library of Congresses were originally used as a measure of information in the collection of the Library of Congress.

    Anyhow, as a back-of-the-envelope estimate, 29 million books at 1" x 10" x 8" gives us a value of ~50,000 cubic yards. That gives us a value of ((10^7) (cubic micrometers)) / (50 000 (cubic yards)) = 2.61590124 × 10-16 Library of Congresses.

    Screw this "metric system" with it's plethora of different units for different quantities. I strongly endorse that everybody normalize on Library of Congresses for units of any quantity. Just imagine how it would simplify your life!

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  27. Re:Reeedeeeculous by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Looks like gone are the days when all you needed to good discussions on Slashdot was genuine curiosity and decent , not necessarily perfect, grasp of English language. And no, being a know-all, done-all master of the universe was not required either.

    True but you were also expected to recognize that you were not a know-all done-all master... There was never a time on /. where someone who said "I'm right and all these fools have no idea what they're doing" wouldn't result in the poster being smacked down if they were wrong.

    While I can perfectly understand saying "You are making a mistake" or "That's not what the article says", I have never really understood calling someone pathetic for not knowing something.

    Not knowing something is not pathetic. Acting like you know when you don't, and calling the people who do know idiots, is pathetic and I have no issue with someone being called out on that.

    See, you're forgetting the other half of slashdot posting that has changed the OP. It used to be much more common to see a post that would say something like "I thought cube/square scaling laws implied that you can't have an efficient heat engine below a certain size because the heat would dissipate faster than you could generate it. How does this invention get around that?" or "I don't really get QM, so can some explain how it's possible something to be in two states at once, and why electrons are shown as 'clouds'? Doesn't the electron have to actually be somewhere?"

    Nowadays there's a lot more like the OP. "Oh my god, even Gallileo could have figured that these idiots invention couldn't possibly work!" or "Something can't be in two states simultaneously! So obviously QM is wrong and stupid. I can't believe there are so many idiots who blindly believe in that dogmatic bullshit!"

    There's still some of the former, and always were the later. But seriously, I don't think it's that Slashdot has changed when a post that starts off "Reeeeeedonculous!" attracts people ready to tear it down.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  28. Re:Beer cans? by gsarnold · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No, no, no! You don't put the beer in the fridge, you put the fridge in the beer! Take that disk thingy Guinness uses in their cans to make it all foamy and add the refrigerator to that! Take it off the shelf, pop it open, wait two minutes and Voila! -- it's ice cold AND foamy! Brilliant!

  29. Re:Nanites are in luck by flyingfsck · · Score: 2, Informative

    "peddle" - no I don't think they need to sell stuff.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  30. Tough call by KiwiCanuck · · Score: 2, Interesting

    if this is useful. I've seen micro rotary and piston engine. They suffer from two problems. One is heat loss due to high surface area to volume ratio (heat leaks away before work can be extracted), and the other is charge (fuel/air) leakage. This appears to solve the leakage problem buy not using combustion. Good job!

  31. Re:what is a cubic micrometer by RobVB · · Score: 2, Funny
    It would be great if commercials were like this:

    This car will drive 437 milliLibraries of Congress per nanoLibrary of Congress of gasoline! And with the low carbon emissions of just 4.3 picoLibraries of Congress of CO2 per microLibrary of Congress driven, it's great for the environment!

    --
    I'd rather you rationally disagree than irrationally agree.
  32. Re:On Chip cooling? by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 2, Insightful

    By taking that clause out of context, you're making it mean something else. In context of the paragraph it means reducing heat *in one place* vs. another. Once again, net heat increase may be both acceptable and necessary if the area of increased heat handles it better and enables the area of decreased heat to function where it otherwise would fail/degrade. I can see you're trying to be both clever and pedantic, but you're just failing to comprehend and I don't know what you think you're adding to this discussion.

    --
    I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
  33. Read the attached paper... by autophile · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I read the attached paper on arxiv, and from what I could tell, they passed a DC current through the thing, which caused the small engine beam to expand, causing it to heat up and move the mass. The piezoelectric effect causes the resistance in the small engine beam to change, which causes the beam to cool down and move the mass back with help from the larger spring beam. Rinse, repeat. Effectively a thermoelectric buzzer. The buzzing of this particular device was measured to be about 1.255 MHz at a DC current of 1.045 mA.

    Unlike what the Technology Review article says, the paper shows no application of an AC current to get the thing vibrating. In fact, the measured voltage is alternating because the resistance is alternating. The current remains the same. There is no complicated application of a DC current and an AC current. There's just an applied DC current.

    Am I understanding the paper correctly?

    --
    Towards the Singularity.
  34. Re:Usefulness? by Qzukk · · Score: 2, Funny

    How much of a temperature difference do you think you can find within the human body across a machine of a few micormeters (or even millimeters) in length?

    That's what the 12" heat sink sticking out of your chest is for. That, and impressing the ladies.

    --
    If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.