Mt 24 reviewed

[BAHammer]

The fact that the lever needs to be twice as long on one side of the pivot as the other (in order to lift the 5 lb weight) will result in the 2.5 lb weight canceling out any net torque you might have gained...

  eric,
It's actually a neat trick in math and no loss of torque.
What happens is when an arm advances radially, it lifts a weight in a linear line.
The radial advance of the arm can reduce the force of the weight by 5% as an example.
The weight being lifted towards center can have it's resistence potential reduced by 12%.
As far as torque goes, this would depend on the total weight of the wheel and the amount of over balance. There would eb a ratio. An example of this is if the wheel with 4 weights weighs 25 pounds (the wheel weighs 5 pounds).
If the over balance increases the net force of a weight by 10%, then it woould be 1/2 pound of force to 25 pounds of weight. Or a 50:1 ratio.

  With Mt 24, the weight hanging from the fixed arm is only assisting the lighter weight on the moveable arm. It's possible pulleys on both sides of the weight can have a line going over them. This would keep the weight on the fixed arm from twisting because of a line on one side only.
This is where the hoist mechanism allows a lighter weight to lift a heavier weight.
As for building the wheel, I'm not sure when I might be able to continue building. Got thrown a curve I saw coming. That is a part of life. Would like to do it today, but..............

a little math, with a 2:1 hoist mechanism, the weight being lifted will move 1/2 the distance of the drop of the moveable arm. By having a slightly heavier weight on the moveable arm, or a different ratio, tehn inertia would not be a problem. It is something that might need to be worked with to find out what works best. After all, there is no solid information to base the best possible scenario on.
The math helps to give a good place to start. And by trying a few different weights or ratios, then what works best would become known.
  But for a wheel that works, which has yet to happen, then the math can help to build a wheel that even if it roattes slowly would still show Bessler's mechanics and engineering work. And that is kind of what this is about for some people.

[erickdt]

I think your math is a bit fuzzy. Gears, scissor jacks and the like do not reduce the ammount of input needed to do work, they actually increase it. Such devices merely make the work more managable like in the case of a car jack, gear system or block and tackle. Because of the fact that the more mechanics you introduce into any system the more friction and other losses are introduced you actually wind up having to do more net work than you would have had to otherwise. IOW: trying to lift a large weight purely with the force of a light weight channeled through some mechanical arrangement will never work as an overbalance mechanism. You will always have to shift the lighter weight by a factor of the heavier weight divided by the lighter weight and then some. For example: Using "Bessler's Scizzor Jack": If you were to use say a 5 lb weight to try and move a 10 lb weight a distance of 1'-0" you'd have to move the 5 lb weight approximately 2'-0"+ in which case you've basically created a roverbial balance. No net gain in torque... 

[BAHammer]

I think your math is a bit fuzzy. Gears, scissor jacks and the like do not reduce the ammount of input needed to do work, they actually increase it. Such devices merely make the work more managable like in the case of a car jack, gear system or block and tackle. Because of the fact that the more mechanics you introduce into any system the more friction and other losses are introduced you actually wind up having to do more net work than you would have had to otherwise. IOW: trying to lift a large weight purely with the force of a light weight channeled through some mechanical arrangement will never work as an overbalance mechanism. You will always have to shift the lighter weight by a factor of the heavier weight divided by the lighter weight and then some. For example: Using "Bessler's Scizzor Jack": If you were to use say a 5 lb weight to try and move a 10 lb weight a distance of 1'-0" you'd have to move the 5 lb weight approximately 2'-0"+ in which case you've basically created a roverbial balance. No net gain in torque... 

  eric,
this is the basic premise or idea
>>If you were to use say a 5 lb weight to try and move a 10 lb weight a distance of 1'-0" you'd have to move the 5 lb weight approximately 2'-0"+ in which case you've basically created a roverbial balance. No net gain in torque...<<

This is why with the idea I posted in the "My Current Build" thread can be modified to be Mt 24.
This is basic trig., hopefully you'll understand the point I'm trying to make.
@ 1 meter, if an arm rotates 15 degrees, it drops 25.88. It's maximum potential force is still 96.5% of it's mass.
If it rotates 7 degrees, it drops 12 cm's. With a 2:1 ratio, that is a lifting potential of 6 cm's.
The difference is, the weight and arm that rotates 7 degrees will still have 99% of it's maximum force potential.
I think sometimes people are overly concerned with resistence. Today, we have bushings and bearings. In Bessler's day, he might have used grease from animal fat.
The important part is finding a starting point. Then the mass to levergae ratio and other things can then be figured out.
With Mt 24, because the levers advance, the primary weights keep a constant force on the wheel.
Still, something like springs would also be needed. But some details would be more difficult to get accurate without first trying a wheel that is designed to work along specific engineered guidelines. This way, if modifiacations are made, then information could be obtained to help understand where design improvements would be needed.