And your air bucket theory has been shown over and over to lose energy by having to pump the air down to the buckets.
The design does not "pump" the air down to the bottom. Steel air tanks with the compressed air inside are interchanged with depleted air tanks at the top. when that tank reaches the bottom the air is released.
You seem unaware that is hard to do, so you negate that expenditure or energy.
But that force needed to pump the air down to the buckets is way more than the bucket will lift up.
But you do make the vital point that determines if the design produces more energy to keep it running than you get out of it. That is what I am trying to calculate.
The design produces an upward force of 118,428 cubic feet of trapped air pushing to get to the surface.
This pushing/pulling force is constant. While at the same time a refilled tank of air has to replace a discharged tank at the bottom every 11 seconds.
Translating this into an equation is above my pay grade. I came up with a crazy idea, made a drawing of it and posted this idea here. Personally, I have given up on it. I still think it has potential but cannot prove it. There is nothing more I can add to this discussion.
Having said that, I thank all of you for participating in this debate.
The world is running out of fossil fuels and I was just trying to come up with an alternative.
I put in my two cents, nothing left for me to do

-