Feynman: Reversible machines, no perpetual motion?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of reversible machines and their relation to perpetual motion, as explained in the Feynman Lectures. It highlights that conservation of energy implies that perpetual motion is impossible, even for ideal reversible machines. The inquiry questions whether a reversible machine could be considered a form of perpetual motion, as it can theoretically move back and forth without energy input. However, it is clarified that a perpetual motion machine must perform work, not merely exhibit motion. The distinction is made that the motion of a reversible machine does not equate to perpetual motion because it does not generate usable energy.
SchroedingersLion
Messages
211
Reaction score
56
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
 
Physics news on Phys.org
SchroedingersLion said:
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.
 
+1

Otherwise the motion of planets would count as pm.
 
  • Like
Likes sophiecentaur
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top