[perPedes (OP)]

WARNING. WE BELIEVE THAT THIS POSTER IS TRYING A SCAM TO SELL A FAKE PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE

Hi you can see the Pm on a website, so can I put the link herein ?

[Colin2B]

No, but you can explain your machine in new theories unless you have already published elsewhere.
If you are trying to link to a website then you have already published, sorry.

[perPedes (OP)]

we are talking about the first real existing Perpetual motion, so sorry too. i suggest you take a look at the 13 min video and than you decide . thank you

[Colin2B]

we are talking about the first real existing Perpetual motion, so sorry too. i suggest you take a look at the 13 min video and than you decide . thank you

We did, our rules are clear, because it has been published elsewhere. You need to develop it for larger scale and to extract energy eg to operate a refrigerator requires driving a compressor.

We’ll pass it around the moderator team and decide whether to make an exception.

PS your video is very boring, with lots of old film number etc which don’t add anything, I would recommend making it more snappy.

[Origin]

we are talking about the first real existing Perpetual motion, so sorry too.

You don't really have anything useful, sorry.  What you are trying to do is not possible and a waste of time.

[Deecart]

Very interesting.

I dont understand the part with the ferrofluid but the principe with the capilarity mixed with archimedes looks obvious as soon as you have understand it.
The guy dont explain it clearly (even if i speak german fluently) so i will do it here :
You use some device to elevate the water using capilarity.
You put a floating thing into this elevated water.
You let the floating thing fall after it has elevated above the flat surface of the water (because of the elevation added by the capilarity), into the part of the flat surface of the same water -but not elevated- using some circular chain of those things.

The device he presented in his video seem to be functional and at very first glance could be right in a physical point of view.

So, 2 possibilities.
1. He is a crook.
2. It works.

Everyone can test his invention and verify if 1 or 2, so thats at least the good point.

[Origin]

The device he presented in his video seem to be functional and at very first glance could be right in a physical point of view.

If it's a perpetual motion machine then you don't understand the "physical point of view".

So, 2 possibilities.
1. He is a crook.
2. It works.

Incorrect, #2 would be he is ignorant of physics.

[Deecart]

I don't see the flaw in his device.
Do you ?

[Origin]

I don't see the flaw in his device.
Do you ?

Conservation of energy.

[Bored chemist]

I don't see the flaw in his device.
Do you ?

The obvious flaw is that it's a perpetual motion machine and they are impossible.

[Deecart]

Conservation of energy.

In fact you dont even have understand anything.

The obvious flaw is that it's a perpetual motion machine and they are impossible.

You are wrong.
It is not a perpetual motion machine.
It is a superunitary machine.

[Bored chemist]

You are wrong.
It is not a perpetual motion machine.
It is a superunitary machine.

Actually, it's a mistake.

[Deecart]

Actually, it's a mistake.

Explain us (no general claim like it cant because it cant) why it cant work and i will believe you are some scientist.
Actually i just know you dont even understand how his machine work.
So actually you are at level 0

[Deecart]

I just have understand how ferrofluid could be used to improve his device.
If you put some ferrofluid in some container and instead of using capilarity you elevate the ferrofluid using some permanent magnet (here you can elevate it much more than water...) you can use this elevated liquid like in the previous machine.

[Bored chemist]

Actually, it's a mistake.

Explain us (no general claim like it cant because it cant) why it cant work and i will believe you are some scientist.
Actually i just know you dont even understand how his machine work.
So actually you are at level 0

Someone already explained it a hundred years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem

i will believe you are some scientist.

Reality doesn't care what you believe, and nor do I.
Were you not aware of that?

[Deecart]

Someone already explained it a hundred years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem

This is a lazy general argument.
A true scientist would try to understand the detail.

Reality doesn't care what you believe, and nor do I.
Were you not aware of that?

My appreciation is not intended for you.
Were you not aware of that?

[Kryptid]

It won't work because the force of buoyancy on the chain would be equal on both spots that are passing through the water's surface. It doesn't matter whether one is higher than the other or not. If the forces are equal, you don't get movement. So what we are looking at is either a hoax or some CGI that is only meant to portray what the OP thinks it would look like.

[Bored chemist]

A true scientist would try to understand the detail.

In order for you to understand the detail, you need to understand the fundamentals.
That's why I pointed out the fundamental reason why the OP is wrong.

The detail of why the OP is wrong are actually issues of psychology.

[Deecart]

It won't work because the force of buoyancy on the chain would be equal on both spots that are passing through the water's surface.

The force is not equal, because the length of the chain immersed in water, left (with water elevated) and right (water at normal height) is not equal.
You would be right if you used some floating objects, immersed at the place where the water is elevated and some other at the place where the water is not elevated.
You would effectively end up with the same force acting on the same type of object, because they would end up with the same equilibrium, independently of the fact that water is elevated or not... but you would however have some difference => potential energy of the object would be greater at the place where water is elevated.

But here we are not talking about the difference of potential energy of separated objects (because there is no equilibrium so there is no difference in potential energy when the objects are linked) but about the difference in term of force.
Instead of potential energy difference when objects are separated we have the production of some force when the objects are linked.
And the work of this force is easy to calculate : Because of the energy conservation principle, its value is equal to the potential energy difference when the objects are separated.

[Origin]

And the work of this force is easy to calculate : Because of the energy conservation principle, its value is equal to the potential energy difference when the objects are separated.

Great, demonstrate this easy calculation and we can show you where your error is.