Monitoring quantum Otto engines
Jeongrak Son, Peter Talkner, Juzar Thingna

TL;DR
This paper compares two diagnostic schemes for quantum Otto engines, showing that using pointer states during contact diagnostics better preserves quantum coherence and improves engine performance metrics like power and efficiency.
Contribution
It introduces and analyzes a contact-based diagnostic scheme that maintains quantum coherence better than repeated measurements in quantum Otto engines.
Findings
Contact diagnostics outperform repeated measurements in power and efficiency.
Quantum coherence is better preserved with contact schemes.
Finite cycle durations require more cycles to reach steady state.
Abstract
Unlike classical systems, a measurement performed on a quantum system always alters its state. In this work, the impacts of two diagnostic schemes to determine the performance of quantum Otto heat engines are compared: In one scheme, the energy of the engine's working substance is measured after each stroke (repeated measurements), and in the other one, the energies after each stroke are recorded in one or two pointer states and measured only after the completion of a prescribed number of cycles (repeated contacts). A single pointer state suffices if one is only interested in either work or heat. For joint work and heat diagnostics, two pointers are needed. These schemes are applied to Otto engines, whose working substance consists of a two-level system. Depending on the engine protocol, the duration of a single cycle may be infinite or finite. Because in the repeated contact scheme,…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
