[Bored chemist]

which source do you doubt ?

The problem isn't the sources.
The problem is your conclusion.
If you put a glass tube into water, the water will rise a bit in the tube.
That does not break the conservation of energy.
It also (obviously) does not provide perpetual otion.

[perPedes (OP)]

the problem is that you want to refute a calculation with words, you can only do that with numbers in a calculation, so where did he miscalculate, and please answer with numbers, otherwise Im afraid but you will be considered a gossip in mathematics circles

[Kryptid]

It looks like you are doing calculations based on two separate objects, so it wouldn't be applicable to a single continuous object such as a chain (which has a constant displacement in water: the chain rotating doesn't alter the value of this displacement, so there is no net force acting on the chain).

[Bored chemist]

the problem is that you want to refute a calculation with words, you can only do that with numbers in a calculation,

No
I can use words to say
"You are doing the wrong calculation".
The error is not mathematical but logical.
Since nothing in that calculation refers to a moving object, it can not be a mathematical description of any sort of motion.
In particular, it can not be a description of perpetual motion.

[perPedes (OP)]

As you can see under V, different forces act on the two pins, which you doubt.if it works with the sticks, then even more so with a chain

[perPedes (OP)]

I can use words to say
"You are doing the wrong calculation".

i have a short cut. you are only doing wrong

and please stop boring me without a miscalculation you found, by numbers

[Kryptid]

if it works with the sticks, then even more so with a chain

No, because it ignores the mechanism by which objects rise in water in the first place. If you are at the bottom of a pool and exhale a bubble of air, the bubble will rise. Why is that? It's not because the air bubble has antigravity properties. It's because the water is more dense than the air bubble and can thus expend gravitational potential energy to fall further down into the pool by allowing the air bubble to rise. This converts the gravitational potential energy of a parcel of water into kinetic energy, which causes the water to move downwards. This less dense air bubble is pushed up in response. So in order for an object to rise in a water column, the water itself has to be able to move downward.

If you immerse part of a chain in water and wrap it around a cog or gear of some kind (as appears to be the case in your video), then there is nowhere further for the water to fall. The water cannot convert gravitational potential energy into kinetic energy because there is no net change in depth of the submerged part of the chain. If the water tries to push part of the chain up out of the water, then an equal volume of chain on the other side will subsequently become submerged into the water in response. Part of the chain coming out is equal to the same amount of chain being submerged and at the same depth. There is nowhere for the water to go, so it can't release potential energy to power the movement of the chain.

Even if we didn't know why it wouldn't work, we could still say with complete confidence that it would not work because Noether's theorem won't allow it to work. If you disagree, then you need to research Noether's theorem further. Your device doesn't violate time symmetry, so it can't break conservation of energy.

[Bored chemist]

As you can see under V, different forces act on the two pins, which you doubt.if it works with the sticks, then even more so with a chain

That makes no sense.
In this instance the issue is language rather than logic or maths.

you are only doing wrong

Pointing out that you r post makes no sense is not "doing wrong".

and please stop boring me without a miscalculation you found, by numbers

If you do not want to hear other people's criticism of your ideas then do not post them on a science discussion forum.

[Bored chemist]

You don't seem to realise that you have re-invented this
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Boyle%27sSelfFlowingFlask.png

[Kryptid]

Out of curiosity, how much did it cost you to build your device? Can you make a second one?

and please stop boring me without a miscalculation you found, by numbers

One does not have to do miscalculations in order to be wrong. I can do a calculation showing that a helium balloon rises in air and I can get the numbers fully correct, but I can't use that as proof that I can fly a helium balloon to Mars. Wrong assumptions lead to wrong results.

[alancalverd]

here the calculation in english  sry I have only the link, so please let it in.

<link removed>

The second diagram is incorrect.

[perPedes (OP)]

As I already wrote, I'm not contradicting you, but numbers do it if you don't find a calculation error, you don't have a chance. show it to someone who can count

[perPedes (OP)]

The second diagram is incorrect. why ?

[Kryptid]

if you don't find a calculation error, you don't have a chance.

Did you read my previous post?

[perPedes (OP)]

do you know what numbers are 1. ( this is a number ) and 2. whats wrong wizh diagram 2 ?
 

[alancalverd]

The second diagram is incorrect. why ?

It doesn't show a meniscus inside the small ring. Which means that half of the meniscus equation is missing.

[perPedes (OP)]

as you read at V, the meniscus is sucked off, that's why the pen rises, or why else does the pen do that, what do you think? here you can see it    <link removed>   4.30 min ff

[alancalverd]

I am convinced that the awful video is a con.

My offer remains as always: bring me a working model of a perpetual motion machine and I will turn it into semi-infinite wealth.

[perPedes (OP)]

i think that someone who is not able to put a wooden stick in the water and put a tube over it and instead would rather pretend he knows everything like so much better, that these guy cant bring anybody a penny or what do you see that .

the fact is that you can doubt the video if you're too lazy to quickly rebuild it, but the calculation cannot be refuted with faith, whether you like it or not. And as I said, if you can't even do the math, you don't know a thing about numbers and you can't make anyone rich for sure. you should learn elementary school mathematics, then you could at least make yourself rich

[perPedes (OP)]

oh. I forgot, why dont you buy one <link removed>