Are you trying to make my humor go nuclear?

Perpetual energy hasn't worked yet, but this seems like it may be possible (other perpetual energy machines I've seen don't use gravity like this one does).

Although that website is crap and that makes me skeptical of it's credibility. For example, most of the stuff is images, and the explanation page is broken.

I don't think this attempt is particularly clever for all the "free energy" gimmicks out there. Until we can pull energy out of our ass, there won't be anything remotely close to "free energy". Even if we can start pulling energy out of our asses, it still came from somewhere. Conservation of energy, look it up.

I'm curious how the balls on the right travel up without the expenditure of energy.

If you want free energy, get a wind turbine (and pump excess energy back into the national grid for a refund) or go solar.

i post a solution to fill balls with gas and submerge the right half.
its easy to life one ball
sorry bob i have to tell you your wrong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1woSe6UB0c8

(NOTE: YouTube undergoing maintenance right now, so I'll comment on the website link at the top.)

If you could make a perpetual motion machine, you could essentially turn that into enough electricity which could be used to power the world. Then, billions of dollars of research wouldn't have to go into new sources of energy.

As a result, the USA actually has a rule in their patent office that you cannot patent an actual perpetual motion machine without a working, proven model. (And look at the website... they've contacted a whole bunch of countries, but NOT the USA.)

So if anyone's truly made one, they would be extremely rich and famous and could afford better web authors and their papers would show that they have made contacts in the USA and not several other countries.

My thought on why this particular model wouldn't work is because in order to lift one ball up, you need the power of seven or eight. So when it comes time to lift another, well, all but one is sitting at the bottom!

--- Kris Asick (Gemini)
--- http://www.pixelships.com

Once upon a time it was "It's true. I read it in a book," which became "It's true. I saw it on TV." Now it's "It's true. I saw it on YouTube."

Piccolo, the reason such a device cannot work is simple.

It takes as much energy to raise each ball as what each ball gains by dropping. So even if you had a frictionless system, the best it could do is break even. But since there is friction, some of the energy gained in dropping the balls is converted to heat, and so the system will actually lose energy, not magically gain "free" energy.

Pullies don't reduce the needed energy to lift anything. Otherwise, you could just use pullies as a "free energy" system. The minimum energy to lift anything is the potential energy gained by the lift (ie: the break-even point). Compensating for friction will add to your energy requirements.

I think you misunderstand how seesaws work...

seesaw... the haver side dominate the lighting side. in this example the case is a seesaw with 8 balls on one side and one ball on the other.

Euuh yeah. That process isn't lossless (or gains energy). It will lose energy through heat, and thus will not work perpetually.

I don't even know what that means. Can you rephrase? Gravity is a force (from distortion of spacetime), whereas heat is energy. You can't subtract one from another.