What's wrong with this

[tinman]

Dieter a set of ideas are not dogma when they are shown to be correct every time they are reliably tested.  If one is going to find an exception to a well established principle it almost has to be through experiment.

If i had a spare(estimated) $20 000,i would show you a self powered device that opperates on buoyancy principles.

Now what gas can be eliminated from an air tight vessle that dosnt need to be expelled,but remains in the vessle to be used once again once the vessle has reached the ocean floor.
What gas can return most of it's energy to the source that created it once it is eliminated

What is the total energy of a 500kg mass falling 3.2 kilometer's?
What is the total energy of a 500kg mass being raised 3.2 kilometer's.

[Floor]

@MarkE

The title of the topic is What's wrong with this.
The subject, is the conversation we are having, not the floating device.
Get it ?

                             

[Floor]

@Dieter

Yes I agree, you are correct.

The fluid rise in fluid level (to the top of the container) along with an air lock was the subject of the
state diagrams that were posted by MarkE, and are irrelevent in the context of what I presented.

Hence the "discussion" MarkE and I are having.

The Pdf adressed to MarkE can be read by any one,  other wise I would have sent it as a personal
message.

              and peace be with you as well

floor

[MarkE]

If i had a spare(estimated) $20 000,i would show you a self powered device that opperates on buoyancy principles.

It would be $20k down the tubes so to speak.

Now what gas can be eliminated from an air tight vessle

If it is gas tight, then by definition gas cannot enter or leave.

that dosnt need to be expelled,but remains in the vessle to be used once again once the vessle has reached the ocean floor.

The question is vague, but it sounds like you want to change the volume of your submerisble.

What gas can return most of it's energy to the source that created it once it is eliminated

Once what is eliminated?  A rival gas gang? Let me introduce you to my leetle molecule!

What is the total energy of a 500kg mass falling 3.2 kilometer's?

Even if we assume that the fall is from a point near sea level, it all depends on whether the mass falls through a fluid or a vacuum.

What is the total energy of a 500kg mass being raised 3.2 kilometer's.

For the same conditions as the fall, it has the same dependencies.

[TinselKoala]

Consider a solid object immersed in a completely full, sealed container of liquid.
It should be obvious that the solid object displaces its own volume of liquid. Right?

Now move the solid object up by the distance of its own height.

Notice that the liquid that was above the object, before the raising, has to go somewhere for the object to occupy that space. Where does it go?
It goes to fill up the space where the object was before raising. That is, the object goes up, and an equivalent volume of liquid goes _down_. Right?

This has to be true whatever the densities of the object and liquid. Right?

Now start considering densities. If the object weighs less than the fluid it displaces, it is positively buoyant. So it rises, and a volume of fluid that is _heavier_ than the object sinks, to fill up the space where the object was before it rises. Right?

Is this beginning to "sink in" yet? 

The rising object rises, because an equal fluid volume that is _heavier_ than the object, sinks.  How the hell can you expect to get net work out of that situation? 

The situation is exactly analogous to a rope over a pulley, with a light weight tied to one end of the rope and a heavy weight tied to the other end. The light weight rises because _the heavier weight falls_.  It takes work to set up the situation with the heavy weight up and the light weight down; this work -- and no more -- is returned while the system runs toward equilibrium with the heavy weight down and the light weight up; then you have to do work again to reset the system with the heavy weight up and the light weight down.