You have not said What??
GIGO and NASA in the same breathe /sentence ?
specifically implying that NASA does Garbage testing/research... Your a legend in your own mind MarkiE



I have better things to do than search for your GIGO NASA  comment on this forum.
but calling me a Liar for repeating it is pretty cowardly ..and I can absolutely guarantee you
something you would NEVER say if we were sitting across the table from each other.

But it does speak volumes about your character .

**
Although I must add ,perhaps it was another Mark E that made that "GIGO NASA" post ??
at times you do seem to suffer from some form of "I never said that" alter ego...
maybe Sterling is onto something....?

are there Other  Mark E's in the clubhouse making nasty posts about organizations
at the skill level of NASA ..so as to uphold their belief system... ??

I don't think anyone with a brain is arguing that buoyancy, aka gravity, cannot be used in the performance of work. The clock driven by weights on cords is one simple example. However the _source_ of the energy that drives the clock, which is released slowly by the descending weights and the clock's mechanism, is not gravity, it is whatever raised the weights up in the first place. The Bank is not the Source of your money! And if you take money out of the bank faster than you are putting it in, pretty soon you run out completely.

And it is perfectly true that if you bubble some air into a "paternoster" chain of floats as are in the AuKW device, you can have usable work coming out of the output shaft. Nobody, I hope, is disputing that.
 
What is clearly _impossible_ is for complete cycles (using gravity aka buoyancy)  to be performed without outside input of energy, once the stored energy is used up. This is the problem. Something has to reset the weights of the clock back to the elevated position or the clock will stop running, and that energy is coming from the breakfast of the clock-keeper, and the energy in that breakfast ultimately came from the sun (and perhaps a little bit from a nuclear fission power plant).
Ditto the PaterNoster float system: efficiency calculations (and many years of experimental failures) prove that there is not enough work available at the shaft, or other output mechanism, to compress  and pump the air that is needed to keep the thing running. Outside energy must be provided, and _after losses_ some portion of this outside energy is available to perform work at the output shaft. No energy comes from gravity/buoyancy that you didn't put there in the first place, using a _real_ energy source. 

Anyone trying to run computations on these systems (using gravity in the regions where it is indeed constant and conservative, that is, on Earth and most other places) has to take into account the initial state of the system, the energy stored in the initial state, where that energy came from, and what happens or needs to happen to get the system to return to the _exact initial state_ so the cycle can proceed again. Full cycles, accounting for stored energy, are what really matter in a device that is claimed to _produce_ work or energy from gravity/buoyancy.

You have not said What??
GIGO and NASA in the same breathe /sentence ?
specifically implying that NASA does Garbage testing/research... Your a legend in your own mind MarkiE

So says the individual who concocts nonsense like this, and then denies he made it up:

Quote

yeah, its pot luck all the Garbage they fire into space across squillions of miles
and land on a Fleas Buttocks .
all Garbage pot luck ..
their Clueless ...

Just ask Mark E he'll tell you all about it.

Somehow you miss that NASA is a large organization that sometimes does great things and sometimes makes terrible blunders.  Not bothering to test the mirror in the Hubble before it went up cost hundreds of millions.  Mistaking 1/3 burn through on o-rings for 300% safety margin cost seven people their lives.  Testing for micro Newton forces when pumping 100's of Watts of E/M energy without drawing a vacuum was useless for that purpose.  The Eagleworks team acknowledged that.  That is why they plan tests with a hard vacuum, which despite the editor's zeal the team leader says that they haven't conducted those tests yet.  But that's OK, don't let facts get in the way of your anger.  It's not physics that holds back your fantasies.  It's those darn skeptics always wanting actual evidence to go with extraordinary claims.  If you have followed the Shawyer saga you should be familiar with the fact that SME's have carefully checked his math and found that he misaccounted for the effects of his tapers.

I have better things to do than search for your GIGO NASA  comment on this forum.
but calling me a Liar for repeating it is pretty cowardly ..and I can absolutely guarantee you
something you would NEVER say if we were sitting across the table from each other.

Well you can fantasize all you want about what you think I've said and how indignant you want to feel about it.  If you want to call me out on something I've said then find what I actually said or wrote and get it right.  Otherwise you just make yourself look like a stammering fool.  If you are suggesting that being confronted with that lends you to violence then I think you need some therapy.

But it does speak volumes about your character .

**
Although I must add ,perhaps it was another Mark E that made that "GIGO NASA" post ??
at times you do seem to suffer from some form of "I never said that" alter ego...
maybe Sterling is onto something....?

are there Other  Mark E's in the clubhouse making nasty posts about organizations
at the skill level of NASA ..so as to uphold their belief system... ??

LOL, if you want to hold me to anything I've said, find the quote and its context.   Go ahead and try to find some quote where I take all of NASA to task.  Or bettery yet get a new prescription for your reading glasses.

How is the chain of floats connected to this sprocket which transfers the rotation to the gearing that speeds up the motion to drive the generator? What happens to the floats at the top of the assembly? How do they follow the chain around the top sprocket without interfering with this secondary chain and sprocket that must be driving the transmission?

This puts further constraints on the shape and size of the float buckets.

How is the chain of floats connected to this sprocket which transfers the rotation to the gearing that speeds up the motion to drive the generator? What happens to the floats at the top of the assembly? How do they follow the chain around the top sprocket without interfering with this secondary chain and sprocket that must be driving the transmission?

This puts further constraints on the shape and size of the float buckets.

Chain sprocket A
|    Chain sprocket B
|    |  Output sprocket - another chain entirely
V   V V
|---|-|


|     |
|     |
|     |   chain paths - do not interfere.  simple enough.


|---|   <-- bottom shaft without extension and extra drive gear


During operation - it doesn't return to initial condition... because air is added.  If the air pupmp stops, then most of the buckets will empty of air, but it will stop with some partially filled with air... will have to apply some work to force the mechanism around to fully empty (friction losses will keep some buckets submerged.)


But; working with that premise...
-----
Let me interject a experimental note -
    I have a trash can filled to a depth of about 1.5 feet of water; it has a diameter of about 1 foot. 
   I have a 3 inch inner-diameter pipe also filled with.. less... feet of water.
   I have a pump with a weight of certain mass attached to the handle, so when the nozzle is at the bottom of a container and it's displacement of the water makes the water level equal.  raising the pump so the weight pulls the handle, the same mass is required to get air to come out of the end of the pipe.  It is depth and not overall mass that matters.  Need some refinement; I keep knocking things over and losing water, so it is only a very rough approximation.
-------


Initial condition - 1atm ambient air.  and most buckets empty, and water at its lowest level (having none displaced)
work is applied to compress 4 times the volume of air required to 2 atm (which is enough for an apparatus less than 5 meters in height). (nRT * ln(V2/V1) where ln is natural log function and n R and T are all constants.. can substitute P2/P1 instead of V2/V1 since the tempurature change is irrelavent at such low compression and low volumes)


This compressed air is allowed to enter the water vessel, at the bottom.  This air is captured in a bucket, which imparts a lifting force due to displacing the water from the bucket (the water is already displaced in the entire chamber as the air is allowed to enter)  the moving of the displaced volume requires no work.   In this case actually 100% of the work put into compressing the air is lost in its decompression... as the decompression happens 0 work from its expansion is recaptured. 


The rising bucket will eventually invert and release its decompressed air back to the 1atm ambient.
But a bucket with displaced air in it will move, and its force across time can do work.  This force is (mass displaced * g).  But, this is not connected at all to the work required to compress the air.  So there is no way you can say 'input=output' and be done with it.  Since 100% of the work applied to the input is lost, but the output definatly has more than 0 energy available.




there is lost work is in the friction of the chain links bending around the sprocket and whatever bearings the sprocket's shaft is attached to so it can rotate.
 (note: a larger sprocket allows more toque at a lower speed.... a smaller sprocket will make the shaft turn faster, but reduce torque.  (much like a transformer where I1*V1=I2v2 ...   torque1 * speed1 = torque2 * speed2 ) )

In your balloon example, the balloons get inflated pushing up the local atmosphere as they get inflated, and you can reclaim most of that energy leaving you in deficit.  Similarly, work was done compressing the CO2 cartridge.  Some of that work is reclaimed when the diver opens the cartridge to surface.

the balloon thing wasn't an example, it was a comment...

as for the CO2 cartridge, there is plenty of info available on this. The force required to fill them (+ a little extra to seal it) is give or take 1.6 newtons, Which is exactly what you get back out. its compressed gas, in actuality you gain a little extra because the gas is cooled before it is filled, so you have extra pressure from the ambient heat.

In either case, it doesn't come anywhere close to the energy gained by the sustained buoyant force over time required to lift the diver 100 feet through ocean water.

Do your math

Jesus H ...  Well maybe if you have the flaps extended.  These silly ideas have been debated many times over the past 13 years.  A 767 does not come apart at 220MPH at sea level.  You've been drinking more of the conspiracy theorist mind altering Kool-Aid.  Go calculate Mach 0.86 at sea level.  It's a lot faster than 220MPH.  The people running around like the Mad Hatter are not the professionals at NIST who carefully investigated and then composed that report.I just showed you a steel reinforced freeway intersection that failed due to heat from a petrol fire.  Show me how many 1000' or higher buildings have survived a 767 full of fuel crashing into them at 500mph.No it is some really screwed up people bent on conspiracies who do not perform proper investigation who come up with lame ideas like a 767 coming apart at 220mph at sea level.  It is worse than wrong.I see:  The conspiracy nut Kool-Aid gets you all giddy.Really?  You think that one of the largest office buildings ever built is a speck?  Take another swig of that Kool-Aid.Again really?  It's not like the video didn't get released:  http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/video-of-9-11-pentagon-attack/Well you put yourself into a logical pickle with that idea.  If you believe the FDR then the plane flew the path the FDR indicated and either overflew the Pentagon behind an invisible cloaking device to some secret hangar where the passenger and crew were murdered and the evidence destroyed or the plane hit the ground and the building.  Take your pick. He is one crazy person who insisted on pressing his unfounded ideas.  His colleagues who actually worked in specialties like structural engineering were some of the ones who complained the most.  Nutty is as nutty does.  You apparently partake that Kool-Aid which I find disappointing.  But, there you go.You're getting nuttier and nuttier.

Mark
I really think that YOU should go and do some reserch your self on a 767's speed capabilities at sea level-start with boeings spec sheets first. Take note of the built in speed limits to avoid things like bird strikes taking out the plane at low altitudes. Also see the calculations on maximum thrust v air density v mass of the plane.. Also try and sepperate cruising altitude speed from sea level speed.

Hey,who knows,maybe the guys that couldnt even fly a cessna that managed to pilot a 757 and 767 beyond there capabilities also worked out how to hack into the planes main frame,and disable all the built in safty limits of the aircraft.

A little graph from boeing on the 767-200-->you should go read up a bit Mark,and get YOUR head out of ya ass. Im not seeing the mach .86 at sea level Mark-->who is on the cool aid?.