New permanent magnet motor on youtube from Roobert33

[Omnibus]

@Omnibus . Two independent researchers show between 13 and 20% overunity , and that is "trivial"?

If there's OU (and, of course, there can be OU even more than 13 and 20%) but that is not because of the effect claimed in the link and in the patent (it doesn't appear it's a patent even but just a pre-patent disclosure, PCT). You can understand that by realizing that there cannot be a change in energy along equipotential surfaces. This is the reason why moving the magnets sideways (along equipotential surfaces) will require less energy than separating them along the equipotential surface normals. That is trivial.

[neptune]

@Omnibus .Having read the said article , it is my understanding that what is claimed is the opposite of what you said in your last post . What is being claimed is that it takes less energy to pull the magnets directly apart  then the energy that can be gained by letting them approach in a sideways sliding motion . also , to describe someones opinion as "trivial" is not perhaps the best way for us all to work happily towards a common goal .

[Omnibus]

@Omnibus .Having read the said article , it is my understanding that what is claimed is the opposite of what you said in your last post . What is being claimed is that it takes less energy to pull the magnets directly apart  then the energy that can be gained by letting them approach in a sideways sliding motion . also , to describe someones opinion as "trivial" is not perhaps the best way for us all to work happily towards a common goal .

You can check it easily for yourself that it's not that way. Nevertheless, even if it were the way you describe it, that will not produce excess energy either. You can, of course, prove me wrong if you can show that the work done in a closed loop is not zero because the essence of my claim is that it will be zero.

As for something being trivial -- that's independent of the common goal. The common goal cannot convert a trivial thing into non-trivial.

[Omnibus]

Now, let's talk about what's trivial, what's non-trivial and what is being overlooked. Like I said, it is trivial that no work is done when moving along an equipotential surface. That we cannot explore directly for OU purposes. Another trivial thing is that when there is a body experiencing a variable force of attraction as a function of the distance r between that body and the attracting body, that function may be different when the studied body approaches the attracting body along different paths starting from infinity (starting from points away from the attracting body where the force of attraction is practically zero, that is, several cm away from a magnet; that is, several cm away from a magnet is practically infinite distance from the magnet because it corresponds to an infinitely small force). That second trivial fact can be used for the obtainment of OU but that has nothing to do with just two magnets and their movement sideways or straight. This trivial fact applies to any situation where there is an attractive body with non-uniform conservative force. The said discrepancy is inherent in mechanics but has been overlooked as a source of OU. That's what the basis of functioning of the magnetic propulsor is and that has already been analyzed prior to Kedron. In fact this is what's causing the effect in @Rroobert33's motor and that's what's holding my interest and expectation that said device may be real.

[lumen]

The "Eden Project", I tested this about a year ago and found the major error they made. They used spring scales in their testing! I performed the exact same tests with the same 3/4" square magnets and found no difference in energy at all. Everything balanced perfectly using a digital scale.

I originally had nearly exactly their same results until I noticed the plastic handle stretching on my digital scale and causing small position errors in the magnets when under high tension.
I modified the scale to provide a solid steel mount directly to the measuring unit to remove any spring when under high tension. I tried the tests several times after that, but all gain shown previously was gone!