That linkage would be mechanically feasible for one pair of pistons, as you showed in your earlier animation, but with several like here, the linkage is impossible. It requires parts to interpenetrate, at the axis.

Now, ignoring that, the substitution of a heavy gas to eliminate the pressure gradient doesn't change anything, because the pressure gradient in water isn't what prevented the submerged wheel from operating in the first place. It's the fact that, in all these configurations, as broli has discovered, the Work Out equals the Work In, once you have found all the masses that are being moved and account for them.

Keep thinking, though.

What happens if we attach a bubble or a springload right in the center on the rods?
This bubble contains a volume equivalent to the mass of displaced water + pressure differance + weight of the rod and pistons.
If spring loaded the force upwards will be adjusted accordingly.

This bubble or spring load is following the path of the linkages. The buoyancy of this volume, or force of the spring load, will equalize the force needed to displace water, the pressure difference, and the weight of the rod and pistons, regardless of angle of the system.

This bubble or spring load have only one task: To equalize the factors that stop this wheel from spinning.

I have attached a picture to show you how it can be solved with a weight. Now it will never require force or energy to lift the water upwards. So left there will be only the torque from the buoyancy from the empty space on the right side.

Did I miss anything?



Br.

Vidar

Hi, T-Koala,

That linkage would be mechanically feasible for one pair of pistons, as you showed in your earlier animation, but with several like here, the linkage is impossible. It requires parts to interpenetrate, at the axis.

I think the "interpenetrating parts" are technically rather easy doable (axle bypass pipes). The main technical obstacles are still (not mentioning a conservative principles...) a really high friction with vacuum-tight pistons, a very bad force parallelogram (look at the Force vectors in certain areas - a  piston-push circular offset...).... etc...

Now, ignoring that, the substitution of a heavy gas to eliminate the pressure gradient doesn't change anything, because the pressure gradient in water isn't what prevented the submerged wheel from operating in the first place. It's the fact that, in all these configurations, as broli has discovered, the Work Out equals the Work In, once you have found all the masses that are being moved and account for them.

Keep thinking, though.

This idea (gravity/buoyancy) using a "vacuum"/volume  in a dense gas  environment has some advantages and many disadvantages comparing to a "common" (Air/water) buoyancy combinations....  Of course, both concepts should be "less effective" than a classical overbalanced wheel (weights in a normal atmosphere, sorry, gravity)...

The buoyancy difference between the gasses/fluids should define the theoretical "buoyancy difference" leading to a (possible) overbalance and potentially work performed. Mass in a gravity field has a better potential difference in relation to any buoyancy concept so far, so it's a way to go.... 

Some, sort of:
From the Simanek site:

1833 [No. 6510] Barthelemy Richard Comte de Predaval of Leicester Place, London, Engineer. Complicated mess of water, turning cylinder, drum, pistons, friction plates, springs, etc. It acts "by a joint power derived from the buoyancy of a body in fluids, and the weight of a body in vacuo." (A joint stock company was based on this patent.) Long description in Dircks (1861) pp. 420-427, with four drawings. A rotating drum is in a cylinder. Carefully machined "seals" divide the space between drum and cylinder into a left portion, filled with water, and the right portion in a vacuum. Buoyancy was expected to keep it turning. The inventor describes a simple experiment with a half-drum intended to demonstrate the ability of the buoyant force to turn the half-drum.

"Wouldnt vacuum be the absolute zero-energy level? Wouldn't it allways be a potential difference in an environment full of matter?"

Pretty much. That's why it's so hard to find a real vacuum. For example, I'm working with a vacuum chamber about the size of a washing machine. Say 200 liters capacity or so. Call one atmosphere of pressure 1 million microns. It takes a mechanical roughing pump about an hour to get the chamber down to 1000 microns, then another hour to get to 100 microns, then another hour to get to 10 microns. Then I start the turbo-molecular pump. It takes 10 minutes to speed up, but then it fairly quickly gets the chamber down to below 1 micron (or 10e-3 Torr).  After a couple hours, we are down to the mid 10e-6 Torr, and I can turn on the high-voltage ion pumps, which are totally electrical and have no moving parts. If things are looking good, I can valve off and shut down the mechanical pumps at this stage. By evening the chamber may be down to 10e-8 Torr. But there is STILL air in there, and other stuff too. At these pressures, almost everything has a detectable vapor pressure. So when I fire up the residual gas analyzer I might be able to detect water, air gases, crud from lubricants and seals, even some metals, you name it. And that's in a medium-hard laboratory vacuum, far better than anything you are going to be able to achieve by pulling on plungers.
In fact, any vacuum that's in direct contact with water can't be lower pressure than the vapor pressure of water at that temperature.

Hi,

I understand now that I have to use my hand and energy to lift up the weight in water displaced by the cylinders in order to have a rotating buoyancy wheel. So I now replaced that hand with hollow pistons that have the amount of volume required to lift itself up, making it easy for the pistons to move that water upwards. There is no limit how much volume it can be that lifts the pistons upwards. And still it will be possible to have the very same buoyancy difference between left and right.

Where is the flaw? It must be a flaw, so where is it?

br.

Vidar