I Feynman: Reversible machines, no perpetual motion?

Greetings,

I have begun reading the Feynman Lectures to repeat the most important ideas from my undergraduate studies and to improve my intuitive understanding of physics.

In one of the first chapters, the one about the conservation of energy, he demonstrates that the conservation of energy is equivalent to the statement that there can be no perpetual motion.
Even an ideal (=reversible) machine can not drive an external motion perpetually under the assumption of conserved energy (and vice versa, under the assumption of no perpetual motion, energy is conserved in that reversible machine).

What I am asking myself is: Isn't a reversible machine in itself not a possibe perpetual motion?
He defined perpetual motion with respect to an external object that moves because its driven by the machine.
But what about the machine itself? It can go from A to B, but also from B to A without the need of energy since it is reversible. In principle, if reversible machines existed one should be able to design one that moves perpetually like A-->B-->A-->B-->A....

What am I missing?

Regards
 
28,143
4,531
Greetings,

I have begun reading the Feynman Lectures to repeat the most important ideas from my undergraduate studies and to improve my intuitive understanding of physics.

In one of the first chapters, the one about the conservation of energy, he demonstrates that the conservation of energy is equivalent to the statement that there can be no perpetual motion.
Even an ideal (=reversible) machine can not drive an external motion perpetually under the assumption of conserved energy (and vice versa, under the assumption of no perpetual motion, energy is conserved in that reversible machine).

What I am asking myself is: Isn't a reversible machine in itself not a possibe perpetual motion?
He defined perpetual motion with respect to an external object that moves because its driven by the machine.
But what about the machine itself? It can go from A to B, but also from B to A without the need of energy since it is reversible. In principle, if reversible machines existed one should be able to design one that moves perpetually like A-->B-->A-->B-->A....

What am I missing?

Regards
Sure, but that isn’t what defines a perpetual motion *machine*. A perpetual motion machine needs to do work, not just move.
 

CWatters

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
10,528
2,292
+1

Otherwise the motion of planets would count as pm.
 

Want to reply to this thread?

"Feynman: Reversible machines, no perpetual motion?" You must log in or register to reply here.

Related Threads for: Feynman: Reversible machines, no perpetual motion?

Replies
11
Views
989
  • Posted
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • Posted
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • Posted
2
Replies
29
Views
6K
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
8K
Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
44
Views
10K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving
Top