I need to add (without taking anything away from my previous post) that low quality video of a rotating object is not the best indicator of RPM. If the main rotor arm motion is reversing then the EM brakes were being applied to the disk, so I think it unlikely the RPM was high at that time; what you are seeing is probably a video illusion.

The video serves to demonstrate the various motions of the drive and brake cycles, and very little else. You can observe the motion of the main rotor arm being arrested under braking of the disk, and at other times when the arm is nearly motionless it can be seen reversing direction and spooling back up with considerable energy, merely from application of the EM brake to the disk.   

Excuse me for not investing a lot of time into this but I would like to add I find this interesting and may do so when I have time however, I do wonder if this could be useful in a generator somehow maybe an axial flux type generator it is interesting to note how this effect translates onto the screen but there are things I would like to see like how this thing operates vertically rather than horizontally or even what was to happen if the rotor was on an arm being horizontal while the bearing was vertical to see exactly what happens it is a good shot at science no matter what anyone says.

The theory I have only skimmed through while the video I have watched both it would be nice if people were to explain the theory in their video no matter how crazy they may seem it helps stimulate conversation much faster as talking then reading through all the postings but it is important to have both for better documentation. Camera shy no problem don't show your face just talk lol!

Anyhow I think a lot of work that goes on here are all baby steps to something someone with an open mind can repurpose anything to fit a specific need or maybe even create something new and super useful.

Thanks for your comments and suggestions infringer, I agree with your inference that my presentation of the material has been lacking in some areas. There have been a number of suggestions not unlike your own, ideas for improvement or even experimental curiosity are a positive influence, but it does rather leave the impression that the salient points have been largely overlooked.

To clarify then, the experiments thus far have given rise to the following conclusions:

Phenomenon 1:

A force applied at any point on a body in equilibrium results in an equal and parallel reactive force at the centre of mass of the body acting in the direction of the applied force.
This reaction causes such linear motion of the body as would occur if the original force were applied at the centre of mass, independent of any rotational motion produced by the moment of the applied force.

(This has since been corroborated by discovery of supporting information in the literature)

Phenomenon 2:

Mounting the origin of the applied force (i.e. the EM drive unit) at the central axis of a freewheeling rotor arm on which the disk is mounted (such that the linear acceleration due to the secondary reactive force manifests as rotational acceleration) allows phenomenon 1 to manifest without the requirement to accelerate the drive unit.   

Exploitation of phenomenon 1 by employing phenomenon 2 allows more mass in motion (i.e. higher KE) to manifest from a given investment of input energy. While this might appear to breach CoE there is the possibility that a frame of reference defence might be constructed, since 'non invariance' of KE due to the frame of reference issue is already known.

So there are two bones of centention regarding this concept. The first has been explained at length and eventually verified by reference in the literature. The second may require further discussion.

A quick thought experiment then; if we were hand propelling a bicycle wheel along a road by repeated application of force at the top of the wheel, we would need to keep pace with the wheel as the linear velocity of the wheel increased. We must first walk then run alongside as the wheel accelerates, and we must do so while repeatedly applying our force, the reaction to which resists our efforts to move forward.

The PE apparatus converts the linear acceleration of the disk to circular motion, the disk being mounted on the main rotor arm such that the drive unit remains stationary (aside from the rotation of the rotor arm) and therefore requires no linear acceleration to 'keep pace' with the disk. This is the equivalent of allowing us to stand still in the earlier thought experiment, while still achieving both rotational acceleration and linear acceleration of the bicycle wheel, a ballpark saving of 50% energy.

It is not beyond reason to compare the second phenomenon to having the ability of refuelling an accelerating rocket without the need to accelerate the fuel.

There is a further sting in the tail. If we first recover the kinetic energy of the rotor arm following a period of acceleration, then recover the KE of the disk, the secondary reactive force manifests in the opposite direction and the rotor arm accelerates yet again, allowing a further recovery of energy before the device becomes motionless.

Since each of these motions (ideally) have the potential to store 100% of the energy used to create the original applied force I have claimed a theoretical 300% OU for a device similar to the PE apparatus but having two identical disks mounted on opposite ends of the rotor arm. Mass bias of the disks should be to the edges, and the rotor arm be as lightweight as possible to achieve anything near 300% OU in actual conditions. Well engineered flywheels apparently operate at around 90% efficiency, which is encouraging since EM losses appear to be the most significant obstacle to a viable design.

 
 

I think the next logical step would be measuring all the outputs. For this
you probably have to attach a sprocket towards the freewheeling arm, coaxial with
the central axis, and connect to a generator. This will cover all the possible outputs,
in addition to what you have already in place!
Great work, overall.

Correct the next step is to physically display beyond reasonable doubt this unit can run at the claimed COE we can sit in theory until we have a theory of everything but in truth what makes something real is a concrete physical representation.

I will say though it does appear that there may be some strange kind of gain as described but I am curious as to why something with a 300% COE cannot run itself and give energy this is the next hurdle to cross and where you should be hedging your bets if the principal is indeed as sound as you describe. So if you wait for someone to do it for you it will likely not happen but 3 years and a belief that large should get you motivated I suggest that if you would like verification builds by others to include the full inner and outer workings of your design from the types of bearings down to the smallest screw over to all the electronics to make this possible. Once you have completed a self runner capable of generation of power it will exponentially increase the amount of feedback and participation with your project.

I say if the work is sound enough after 3 years why not give birth to this method of generation of power this is the ultimate goal is it not?