Einstein and His Patents

No, this is not about Einstein’s achievements as a moonlighting scientific paradigm shifter, while working as a patent examiner in his day job.

Albert Einstein Head

Albert Einstein (Wikimedia)

Einstein is famous for the theories of special and general relativity, and for the correct explanation of the photoelectric effect that has been rewarded with the Nobel prize. It is not so common knowledge that he contributed to the theory of Brownian motion, and found a new way of deducing Max Planck’s famous formula for the intensity of blackbody radiation – a prerequisite for an important invention of the 20th century: the laser.

I had graduated in physics, but I was ignorant about Einstein being an avid inventor himself until I read this biography by Jürgen Neffe and Shelley Frisch.

Einstein had spent part of his youth living near or literally in the electrical engineering company operated by his father and his uncle. As a child Albert Einstein became familiar with resistors, magnets, capacitors, light bulbs, generators, and engines.

Later Einstein worked on improvements of a gyrocompass as a technical expert in a patent dispute,  and together with his student Leo Szilard he filed 17 patents in German and some internationall patents on a refrigerator based on gas absorption. Besides, Einstein invented an automatic camera, and he even tried to optimize air plane wings and torpedos (the latter with not too much success, according to Neffe).

The refrigerator patent has been recovered at the end of the 20st century and prototypes have been built recently.  An excellent account of the history of the invention and its inner workings can be found on  Cocktail Party Physics, and the device is analyzed in all thermodynamic details here.

So Einstein’s early exposure to engineering gadgets might have triggered a live-long interest in “building real stuff”. Nevertheless, one might also trace the inventor’s spirit in his theoretical works: Remember the thought experiments used to explain relativity – a world comprising trains, mirrors, clocks, space ships, and falling elevators. A deterministic thinker’s paradise?

Could we dare to speculate that his life-long qualms with the strange nature of the quantum world is due to his engineering mindset (despite the fact that Einstein laid part of the foundations of quantum mechanics)?

The authors of the biography quoted above assume that Einstein’s informal training in engineering prepared him well for his future job as a patent examiner. He was able to nail down the issues with machine defying the laws of physics . If this is true, the process of issuance of patents has changed considerably. I have learned that patents are not granted primarily for the fact that devices do indeed work but for novelty; so it is OK to invent an alleged perpetuum mobile as long as its design is novel. But I digress.

I am finally happy to add Einstein to the list of physicists who contributed to fundamentals of physics and who worked hands-on. I remember Enrico Fermi being often called the last physicist who was both a theorist and an experimental physicist.  And there is of course Richard Feynman – remember the O-ring demo.

Back to the famous fridge:

It always takes me some time to wrap my head around cooling machines that do not use mechanical compressors. Fortunately, I found this annotated drawing of the Einstein-Szilard machine:

Einstein Refrigerator pat1781541 clarified

… which is explained in detail here. [Edit 2017: Linked to archive.org as original server / site does not work anymore.] How does it work?

Generally, any fridge or heat pump (regardless of process details) is based on closed cycle process including

  • condensation of a refrigerant at high temperature and high pressure – at the rear side of the fridge or when a heat pump transfers energy to the water used for heating
  • evaporation at low temperatures and low pressures – inside the fridge or when a heat draws energy from the heat source.

The pressure difference can be due to a mechanical compressor driven by electrical power. But instead of utilizing the total pressure of a single refrigerant, the partial pressure of a gas in a mixture of gases will do. Ammonia can be use used as a refrigerant, and its partial pressure is increased by evaporating ammonia, heating a mixture of ammonia and water. So the energy needed to drive such an absorption process is heat, not electrical energy.

So why is the Einstein-Szilard process even more complicated and based on three substances – ammonia, butane, and water?

Butane is the actual refrigerant, thus cooling is done when the partial pressure of butane is reduced, and butane evaporates at this reduced vapor pressure (in the Evaporator). The total pressure is nearly constant in this process: The partial pressure of butane is reduced by adding ammonia (from the Generator).

In the Condenser the butane partial pressure is increased by removing ammonia from the vapor. This is where water is needed: Water is sprayed into the ammonia-butane vapor, and ammonia is absorbed by the water droplets (due to its large affinity to water). There are two mixtures of liquids in the condenser: butane-ammonia and ammonia-water, and they are separated due to differences in density.

Finally: where is the external energy (heat) fed into the process? Heat is required to expel ammonia from the ammonia-water mixture (in the Generator) that is collected at the bottom of the Condenser.

I neither Met Newton nor Einstein

I am just reading The Trouble with Physics by Lee Smolin. I am not familiar with string theory, quantum gravity and the related communities, so I cannot comment on Smolin’s main statement. But there is a section in the last chapter of the book that resonated with me. He describes his expectations and feelings when entering graduate school as follows: I was in awe of Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg and Schrödinger and how they had changed physics though the force of their radical thinking. …. The great physicists I was rubbing shoulders with at Harvard were rather different from that. The atmosphere was not philosophical; it was harsh and aggressive…

This is actually what I had experienced, too – but would rather use the term competitive instead of harsh and aggressive for a good reason: Competitive is used to denote this type of personality or behaviour of so-called professionals in the corporate world and it has positive connotations there. Thus to make a long-winded blog post short and give you an executive summary: I see lots of similarities between the academic and the corporate world. I do not attempt to offer a thorough review but rather give you my personal thoughts that are not significant statistically.

As Smolin I had also bewildered and sometimes disappointed to find the typical physics professor or postdoc deviate so much from the idol I had in mind. Probably this was an idol I had simply made up or that has been implanted into my mind by too much movies and biased documentaries on science professors. First of all, it would be extremely interesting to time-travel to the beginning of the 20th century and talk to members of the physics community back then. Heisenberg and Schrödinger might have quite competitive as well and not only driven by the philosophical quest to unveil the mysteries of the universe. E.g. the historian of science, Peter E. Fischer mentions Heisenberg’s and Schrödinger’s ambitions at the beginning of this article (in German). BTW he states that great results with be achieved (in physics) if there is a central major person with unquestionable high ethical standards and personal integrity; regarding quantum mechanics this was Niels Bohr according to Fischer.

When I am musing about this today I put it into a different context: Comparing “academia” to the “corporate world” (and by this I mean the world of large global corporation) I so not see so much difference with respect to selection mechanisms, the importance of self-marketing, and competitiveness. Both are complex systems and governed by certain rules in how your  status and success is being measured, such as number of papers, grants, citations – in academia – and utilization (AKA billable hours) and customer satisfactions in the corporate world. The latter example is taken from consulting business. Probably scientists will find this comparison insulting. I just can tell you that as an individual I felt exactly the same way when one or the other system has inflicted its laws on me. I even found the corporate world a bit easier to deal with for a probably unexpected reason – at least unexpected to me: In the corporate world it was about money and beating the competitors – phrased in even military language that turned conferences and meetings into airlifts, boot camps and war rooms.

In academia the targets you had to meet were not nobler (e.g. by cutting your big paper into a lot of small papers to increase the number of publications) but the official goals were: It was about increasing the knowledge of humanity, improving the standards of living of millions of people … or whatever was on the agenda of the large research programmes funded by governmental agencies (AKA the tax payer). I hated the part of grant applications most that required me to make up the statements on “social and economic improvements”. The glaring contradiction between these noble goals and motivations of researchers (*) in real life was one of the reasons I left academia.

I feel obliged to add some disclaimers here: Yes, I thought about “staying in the system and changing it from within” and yes, this is a personal statement only true to myself and it might not be applicable to any other scientist’s life. And yes, I did really well with regards to benchmarks and numbers in any of the systems according to whose rules I felt forced to play.
(*) I do not all say these are the scientists’ true intentions in the same way as corporate goals typically do not reflect individuals’ motivations. But I still think it is quite hard to meet the targets and keep up your true motivations as sort of hobby. I noticed that some people can deal better than others with this kind of divide. I did not.

Most ironically, academia and the corporate world are converging in a way that I did not expect 20 years ago:

  • Also corporations officially turned into noble entities, all “social”, “green” and whatnot. As I said I can deal better with a so-called greedy capitalistic company that does not cloak its intentions by having the CEO or his ghost writers blog on corporate social responsibility. Thus the corporate world is exhibiting the same sort of divide between metrics and targets on the one hand and noble ambitions on the other hand. (And yes, I know that corporations are now also attempting to measure success in terms of the noble goals – but I believe this will turn these goals in just another number to be met. I am a bit obsessed with metrics because I was so good at meeting them, but I might get back to that in a future blog post.)
  • The infamous metrics invented in the corporate world trickled into academia via management consulting wisdom. Even similar tools are used to manage numbers in the academic and the corporate world. Think SAP implementations at universities. (My favourite reference is in German again – philosophy professor Konrad P. Liessmann on  misapprehension of “knowledge society”).

Theoretically I should add a conclusion – after all what is left today for ambitious persons of integrity who want to make a difference? Do I really dare say that both large corporations and academia are built on sort of dysfunctional metrics? No, of course I do not because they have been far too successful applying whatever metrics including fluffy, philosophical goals – so far. But I believe that obsession with metrics in terms of reporting, forecasting, benchmarking, quality management etc. is going to extreme levels now and we have just seen the beginning. I sometimes wonder how big corporations can still be productive on top of administration after all and I have heard and read a lot of people in academia complaining about ever-increasing administrative duties.

Then I am guilty as well: I been part of both and what I learned from both and my so-called track records are the basis of what I am trying to do now. I have neither been as consequent and enduring to avoid these systems right from the beginning or spend all my life in one of them and try to make a change as a fully accountable member of the community.

I can only add some preliminary considerations here: I believe  groupthink and alignment of members of communities have become too strong today – in whatever aspect of life. Smolin points out that this is specific to the String Theory community but I believe it is a ubiquitous phenomenon. Metrics thinking e.g. seems to be contagious and it spreads from one organization to the other and all managers or metrics consultants seem to get the same training (My theory is that management systems that are used to keep all the data required to create benchmarks are selected by asking other managers on the golf course – I found some anecdotal evidence for that). I have worked in one of those industry sectors that is typically fast-paced and I was member of a very strong sub-community. It’s weird but what Smolin says about the String Theory physicists could be applied perfectly to that tech community I have in mind. I like especially his references to the slightly cult-like nature of the communities.

Despite and because of the options we have to “connect with each other” (in social media marketing lingo) we should try – harder as ever – to keep up our independence. I know this sounds a bit vague. I might expound in detail what this means for me personally in this blog, for the time being it is important for me that I was able to really experience how it feels to be part some communities or big systems. Otherwise the grass might always be greener over there.

Many years ago I literally said good-bye to the specters of the great physicists by visiting the physics library for a last time before I left. I bemoaned the lack of career opportunities for young scientists in the speech I gave at my graduation ceremony. I said that I once had thoughts as a physicist I would ponder about how the results of my research would be used (I argued quite pathetically actually: fight cancer or design weapons), but then I had realized that most young scientists are happy if they work in a job loosely connected with science at all. And philosophical musings meant luxury that would be affordable only to the lucky few who have made it.

Having “made it” now in a more money-oriented world I am gradually realizing my personal vision of a science-oriented job and I am indulging in all kinds of philosophical speculations .  (No, I am not Mike Lazaridis and I am not founding a research center. And no, I am also not working on sort of Theory of Everything, I hope my personal crackpot index is zero, although I referred to Einstein in this post. My “science” or “research” topics are so menial I do not dare yet to mention, at least not in this post that started with a referer to a book on quantum gravity.).

So I have found some sort of solution and I will try to investigate if their might be solution that scales to a larger number of physicists. I have not made my mind up, but generally I do not like solutions that only work for the lucky few and that require serendipitous conincidences.