Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
One of the most fundamental and far-reaching discoveries in modern thermodynamics is the Constructal Law (see the wiki entry as well). It was first formulated by Adrian Bejan in 1996. In one of his descriptions, the Constructal Law is:
For a finite-size (flow) system to persist in time (to live), its configuration must evolve such that it provides easier access to the imposed currents that flow through it.
Figure 1. An example of the Constructal Law processes at work in a river system. Formation of meanders, followed by cutting through a meander to form an oxbow lake. Image Source.
The Constructal Law has been described as being as important as the first two Laws of Thermodynamics, but most people have never heard of it. What does the Constructal Law mean in plain English, and what does it have to do with the climate?
Here is a different statement (pdf) of the Constructal Law, again from Bejan:
In 1996, the constructal law was formulated and proposed to expand thermodynamics in a fundamental way.
First was the proposal to recognize that there is a universal phenomenon not covered by the first law and the second law. That phenomenon is the generation of configuration, or the generation of ‘design’ in nature.
All thermodynamic systems in nature are flow systems (i.e. live, non-equilibrium systems), and they all have configuration. If they do not have it, then they acquire it, in time. The generation of configuration is ubiquitous, like other phenomena covered by other ‘laws’ in physics. Biological systems are configured. Geophysical systems are configured. Engineering and societal systems are configured. The configuration phenomenon unites the animate with the inanimate. All the other phenomena of physics (i.e. of ‘everything’) have this unifying power. Falling rocks, like falling animals, have weight, conserve energy, generate entropy, etc.
Second was the statement that this universal phenomenon should be covered by the constructal law. This law accounts for a natural tendency in time (from existing flow configurations, to easier flowing configurations). This tendency is distinct from the natural tendency summarized as the second law.
Again not necessarily the clearest statement, but the general idea of the Constructal Law is that flow systems continually evolve, within the physical constraints of the particular system, in order to maximize some variable(s).
A meandering river in bottomland is a good physical example to understand what this means. In the case of a river, what is being maximized by the flow system is the length of the river. However, this ideal condition is never achieved. Instead, the river length oscillates above and below a certain value.
As shown in Fig. 1, in an “S” shaped river, the moving water erodes the outside of the bends and deposits silt on the inside of the bends. Of course, this inevitably makes the river longer and longer. But when the river does this for a while, it gets too stretched out for the land to bear. At some point, the river cuts through and leaves an island and what will become an oxbow lake.
That leaves the river shorter. Again the lengthening process continues, until the river cuts through some other bend and shortens again. And as a result, the length of the river oscillates around some fixed value. It is constantly evolving to maximize the length, an ideal which it never attains.
Now, here’s the point of this whole example. Suppose I didn’t know about this active, evolutionary, homeostatic characteristic of rivers. If someone asked me if a river could be shortened, I’d say “Sure. Just cut through a meander.”. And if I cut through the bend I could physically measure the river length and prove that indeed, the river was shorter.
But would that really make the river shorter?
Of course not. Soon the relentless forces of flow would once again increase the length of the river until the next cutoff forms another oxbow lake, and the cycle repeats.
Net effect of my cut on the length of the river? None. The length of the river continues to oscillate around the same fixed value.
The key to understanding flow systems is that they are always “running as fast as they can”. They are not just idling along. They are not at some random speed. They are constantly evolving to maximize something. The Constructal Law ensures that they are up against the stops, so to speak, always going flat out.
What does all of this have to do with climate? The Earth’s climate is a huge flow system. It circulates air and water from the tropics to the poles and back. As a result the climate, like the river, is subject to the Constructal Law. This means that climate is constantly evolving to maximize something. Climate, like the river, is also “running as fast as it can”.
What does the climate flow system maximize? Because it is a heat engine (converting sunlight into the physical work of the planetary circulation), Bejan says (pdf) that it is doing a dual maximization. It maximizes the sum of the work done driving the planetary circulation, and the heat rejected back to space at the cold end of the heat engine. Again in Bejan’s words:
The earth surface model with natural convection loops allows us to estimate several quantities that characterize the global performance of atmospheric and oceanic circulation. We pursue this from the constructal point of view, which is that the circulation itself represents a flow geometry that is the result of the maximization of global performance subject to global constraints.
The first quantity is the mechanical power that could be generated by a power plant operating between Th and Tl, and driven by the heat input q. The power output (w) is dissipated by friction in fluid flow (a fluid brake system), and added fully to the heat current (qL) that the power plant rejects to Tl.
where Th and Tl are the temperatures of the hot and cold ends of the system. The system is maximizing the sum of work done and heat rejected.
There is a most fascinating interplay between those two. When the speed of the planetary circulation is low, so are the turbulent losses. So as speed increases, up to a certain point the sum of work done (circulation speed) and heat rejected is also increasing.
But as the speed increases further, the turbulence rapidly starts to interfere with the circulation. Soon, a condition exists where further speed increases actually decrease the total of work done and heat rejected. That is the point at which the system will naturally run. This is why nature has been described in the past as running at “the edge of turbulence”.
What does that mean for understanding the climate? This is a new area of scientific investigation. So I don’t know what all of that means, there’s lots of ramifications, some of which I may discuss in a future post. However, one thing I am sure of.
If we want to understand the climate, or to model the climate, we have to explicitly take the Constructal Law into account.
We are not modeling a simple system with some linear function relating forcing and response. That kind of simplistic understanding and modeling is not valid in the type of system where, for example, cutting a river shorter doesn’t make it any shorter. We are modeling a dynamic, evolving system which may not be affected by a given forcing. The modelers claim (falsely, but we’ll let that be) that their models are based on “physical principles”.
However, they have left one central, vital, physical principle out of the mix, the Construcal Law. And at the end of the day that means that all of their modelling is for naught. Sure, they can tweak the model so that the output resembles the actual climate. But the actual system does not change over time in a random way. It is not driven here and there by forcing fluctuations. It changes in accordance with the Constructal Law. The future evolution of the climate, what Bejan calls the “generation of configuration”, is ruled by the Constructal Law. It cannot be understood without it.
PS – For those that think that the Constructal Law is some crackpot theory, it is not. Bejan is one of the 100 most cited engineering authors of our time, and the results of the Constructal Law have been verified in a host of disciplines. It is indeed a new fundamental law of thermodynamics, one which we cannot ignore.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

jimmi says at November 15, 2010 at 9:26 pm
” “I’ve never been comfortable with the idea that climate, with all its apparent symmetry, could be chaotic”
That’s because it is not – if it were the whole concept of ‘climate’ would not exist – you would just have weather.”
Hmmmmm. No! Jimmy, I suggest you look up what chaos theory is.
This link will get you started
http://www.abarim-publications.com/ChaosTheoryIntroduction.html
And if you read the section in the on Attractors then you will understand why your assertion is an assumption. It is not a fact.
Richard
Mike Edwards says:
November 16, 2010 at 12:17 am
I’m sure he can but that doesn’t mean he will.
Try this:
Whitfield J (2007) Survival of the Likeliest? PLoS Biol 5(5): e142. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0050142
This seems to explain how some glaciers are melting, or sometimes some parts of glaciers, while others are growing. A more credible explanation that that they are melting & will all be gone by 2025.
“What does the climate flow system maximize? Because it is a heat engine (converting sunlight into the physical work of the planetary circulation), Bejan says (pdf) that it is doing a dual maximization. It maximizes the sum of the work done driving the planetary circulation, and the heat rejected back to space at the cold end of the heat engine. Again in Bejan’s words:”
Hi Willis,
Thanks for posting this. I’m trying to read all the background on this but I’m getting a “403 Forbidden” to the PDF link in the above paragraph. Do you have another link? I for one believe the thermodynamics is one of the true last frontiers. There is so much we don’t know……
Thanks,
Jose
It ties in with all of the above”
I really don’t see how that’s relative
1) The so-called “Constructal Law” is not a scientific law, because it does not state what specific physical property of a system will be maximised or minimised. In general terms, it is a behaviour that can be seen in every conceivable “flow system”, because that is the mathematical nature of variables; in any mathematically definable differentiable process or procedure something (some variable, or some combination of variables) must be maximised (or its reciprocal minimised). In the expression a+b=c, what is being minimised is the difference c-(a+b). This is not some deep quiddity; it’s a tautology.
2) Nevertheless, it is often instructive, in considering complex physical or mathematical systems, to look for a variable that is maximised or minimised or conserved, or such that perturbations in its value will be opposed or damped. Identifying such a variable will aid analysis and often lead to valuable insights into the mechanism and behaviour of the system. There is nothing new in this; it is what physicists have always done.
3) The controlling variable(s) may be quite different in different systems; maximising entropy, maximising the rate of entropy change, maximising energy, minimising energy, maximising energy flow, minimising energy flow, maximising work done, minimising action, maximising length, minimising length, maximising volume, minimising volume; or something much more complicated, such as a particular combination of such variables, or the trajectory of a strange attractor.
4) Rivers do not maximise their lengths, nor their flow, nor the work done. Nor do they oscillate about a fixed mean. There is a process of meander formation that would increase the length of the river without limit for as long as meanders do not intersect. When they do, the length discontinuously shortens. The actual length of the river is never stable; it varies on all timescales, with a large-tailed (fractal) distribution, between the upper limit of a plain as completely covered by non-intersecting meanders as possible, and the lower limit of a straight line to the sea. It is not oscillating about an average (it is quite likely that the distribution will be so long-tailed that no statistical average exists; and highly likely that no standard deviation will exist); it is doing a drunkard’s walk. Not all rivers do the same thing, and the same river can switch abruptly from one mode to another; for example, from meandering slowly to running straight and fast. River engineers have long known that in some circumstances, when you cut through a meander to shorten a river, the new cut scours a deep straight navigable channel to the sea, without trying to regain its length by new meanders.
5) I’m afraid that Bejan, in falsely believing he has found a great new organising principle, is indeed promoting something of a “crackpot theory”, and Willis, in attempting to apply that notion to the climate, is falling into the same error.
John Marshall says,
“Very interesting and likely to be very important. It may mean, in the climate scenario, that the hotter a system becomes the quicker it looses heat. This is a blow to the hypothesis of AGW.”
Er, a hotter object does radiate more heat, faster – that is a necessary part of the greenhouse gas theory – it is how the planet gets back into equilibrium.
Very interesting.
Now, can someone make some testable predictions using this new law?
It would seem that the structure of a meandering river, much like turbulent flow, would tend to impede the flow of water through the system. My understanding is that these curves develop as a result of positive feedback between the rate of erosion and the degree of curvature and this persists until the link becomes isolated. I am not sure that the Constructal ‘Law’ is properly stated; as in this case, ease of flow seems to be equivalent to maximizing the amount of erosion.
Willis, you have done it again with another brilliant exposition. Just when I think I know something, you arrive here with another set of stuff that gives me a headache trying to get sorted and categorised to my personal satisfaction. The complexity of the utterly simple is sometimes a little difficult for me to understand, but if I continue to work at it, comprehension eventually arrives.
Thanks!
tallbloke says:
November 16, 2010 at 1:26 am
JDN says: (November 15, 2010 at 10:25 pm) Willis: The reason nobody’s heard of the ‘constructional law’ is because it isn’t useful.
> Maybe JDN should have googled ‘constructal’ rather than ‘constructional’.
I guess I’ll have to wait until the gmail spell-checker recognizes ‘constructal’. I do this exercise of asking ‘what would be lost if it never existed?’ with everything that people claim is a ‘great’ thing or somehow central to thought or life. If the answer is that nothing but a cottage industry dedicated to the thing would be lost, then you have something basically unconnected to the greater reality.
Here’s an example of the principle in a living system. You’ll notice that the configuration advances to an optimum… minimum support required to gather optimum resources. Useful branches don’t just wander away from the food.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/01/22/brainless-slime-mold-builds-a-replica-tokyo-subway/
I’m old school and your post is my introduction to this new “law”. To me it seems that it has more to do with kinetics than it does with thermodynamics. They are related but the first deals with rates and the the second equilibrium. What we observe is the transport of momentum, energy, and mass. It will be a great contribution if it helps us to better understand these processes what ever name you give it. Also, these phenomena may be studied with statistical wave analysis.
I first saw a description of this in Tucson, AZ, at a riparian display at the Desert Museum, if memory serves, now perhaps three or four decades ago. Surely this knowledge is not new?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t see anything new here. I’m not saying it’s useless or wrong, but merely a collection of wise principles and truisms that are either obvious or derivatives of other theories:
Obvious:
“According to the Constructal law, every system is destined to remain imperfect, i.e. with flow resistances ” http://www.constructal.org/en/theory/presentation.html
Already known:
The meandering of a river is completely explained in terms of natural kinetic and thermal forces and minimizing energy (Principal of Least Effort).
The way numbers accumulate e.g. Zipf Distribution is also claimed (by Zipf himself) to be an example of the Principal of Least Effort.
Minimizing Entropy => decompose entities until they are pure (i.e. splitting a handful of dirt into minerals and then elements etc, minimizing the information needed to explain each collection)
Maximizing Entropy => Don’t assume (avoid bias) unless you are compelled to (i.e. use the least informative distribution until you know better).
I have also found similar, useful, wisdom in the Bible:
Deuteronomy 18:21-22 => Don’t believe in (or fear) a Model that gives you incorrect predictions (Alarmists take heed of this 🙂
1 Thessalonians 5:21 (St. Paul) “Test everything and keep what is good.” => (Supervised Machine Learning)
So, I merely want to know: has Bejan’s theory presented any new law of nature that is not obvious or derived from somebody else?
This law should be studied by anyone building a house within the plain of a river. While your chosen plot may be miles from the river bank, anything that happens up stream to its banks can result in the river, within a short period of time, knocking on your door. This is also why serious sounding riprap attempts to control river erosion are only temporary measures. An upstream diversion will simply result in a walk around by the river, all the while thumbing its nosy waves at the downriver riprap now sitting dry as pie crust off in the distance.
Weather systems do the same thing. We get Pacific systems coming in from the coast, and depending on where they choose to flow towards the East, can result in either a New England Nor’ Easter, Washington DC closing its snow bound streets, or lay dry as a bone while Florida’s manatees shiver in their all together in a driving cold rain.
I would imagine that this law is easily studied by a classroom experiment: The tilted sand table with a flow of water at the top.
By the way, that damned wind woke me up in the middle of the night with a BANG! It had jiggled my backyard gate latch open and banged the heavy gate against the house. Both dogs rose from their slumber on full barking/growling/jumping alert. I landed on the ceiling finger and toenails firmly embedded.
kcrucible says: November 15, 2010 at 6:50 pm
That’s not really what I’m seeing. I’m seeing a constant attempt to MINIMIZE the length of the river, which fits in with thermodynamics quite nicely. The original elongation was an aberation. Once in the lowest energy state possible between two points (straight line) there’s absolutely nothing to cause it to create additional corners.
Not true.
In an open system, unrestrained by ACOE dikes, erosion from the land surrounding the defined bed and bank river path will creat gulleys and perennial or intermittent streams. Concommittantly, siltation from upstream erosion occurs in eddy areas near bank obstructions (commonly trees) reducing flow rate and further increasing deposition of siltation. Over time. the flow rate decreases and water level increases (via slope reduction) in those areas. Under periodic episodes of flooding, the water overflows the banks and will erode riverlets into the adjoining intermittent gullys, then return to the original streampath. Subsequent episodic flooding will cause the river to establish a new watercourse in these eroded areas.
What you are seeing is an artificial, channelled, dredged and diked river.
Jack Simmons says:
November 16, 2010 at 4:49 am
Very interesting.
Now, can someone make some testable predictions using this new law?
========================================================
Absolutely Jack! See my post, I’ve already made one. Or, watch a river.
The UNIVERSAL generation of configuration, or the generation of ‘design’ in nature is the FIBONACCI SERIES
Like the comment above on the jet stream, ocean currents may provide a better illustration of the principle under discussion, particularily as it relates to climate. The Gulf Stream is a huge heat dispersion mechanism. The meanders (and the warm and cold eddies on either side of the axis created a meander is cut off) are clearly visible on the image at
http://www.k12science.org/curriculum/gulfstream/images/eastcoast.gif .
…And The FIBONACCI SERIES…is originated by the movement of the resultant force of the two forces (charges) existing and operating in Nature; in other words, by the variation in size of the Pythagorean hypotenuse, or what is the same: WAVELENGTH, whether increasing or decreasing.
Then, if we think it simply, it is the generalization of Max Planck’s equation:
E=h*v
to, E=(Sin y+Cos y) x v x 10
See:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/42018959/Unified-Field-Explained-9
“”””” Enneagram says:
November 16, 2010 at 7:52 am
…And The FIBONACCI SERIES…is originated by the movement of the resultant force of the two forces (charges) existing and operating in Nature; in other words, by the variation in size of the Pythagorean hypotenuse, or what is the same: WAVELENGTH, whether increasing or decreasing.
Then, if we think it simply, it is the generalization of Max Planck’s equation:
E=h*v “””””
I believe that is what Albert Einstein actually got his Nobel Prize in Physics for; not for E= mc^2
Way behind the curve here.
Dynamic systems come to an equilibrium flow when entropy production is maximised, and explains the creation of dissipative structures.
Paltridge first noted this with the earths circulation a few decades ago, lots of other work on ‘Maximum Entropy Production’ by Dewar, Ackland, Gallagher, Levy & Solomon, and many others.
Lots of hardcore effective maths for those who don’t like this ‘constructual’ approach.
@george E. Smith:
> I believe that is what Albert Einstein actually got his
> Nobel Prize in Physics for; not for E= mc^2
Einstein received the Nobel Prize in 1921 for his explanation of the Photoelectric Effect, the elastic scattering of photons by electrons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect
[FYI, Arthur Compton received a Nobel Prize a few years later (1927) for his discovery of the inelastic scattering of photons by electrons (Compton Effect)]
George E. Smith says:
November 16, 2010 at 8:18 am
How did he dare to SQUARE C?….fortunately it was wrong, was it not, the first A Bomb would have blown up our whole planet ! 🙂