LET US ALL HELP RAYMOND BUILD THIS NEW FREE ENERGY MACHINE.

[Floor]

Some observations.

1. We don't know the exact lifting height of the 172 coins.
2. A long run time (maybe 1 hour ? ) will give a more accurate result.
3. An auto counter installed upon the lifter would give an exact count of the number of
times lifted in 1 hour.

Note...
It looks like only 1/2 (one direction) of the the back and forth motion of the
output is being utilized.

If this is correct, then the out put is actually 2 times more than is being shown in
the video ? 

calculations
5.67 grams per coin, times 72 coins.

5.76  x  72 =  408.24 grams total lifting per stroke

130 lifts in 103 seconds  =   1.262  seconds per lift
(from 5 minutes and 54 seconds to 7 minutes and 37 seconds in the
video = 103 seconds)

lifting height = 3/8 or 0.375 inch ? (approximation from video, could be way off)
should be measured / stated.

0.375 inch = 0.00952 meter

0.00952  x 130 repetitions  = 1.2376 meters
... ... ... ... ...
102 grams exerts 1 newton

408.24 grams  / 102 grams = 4.00 newtons
... ... ... ... ...
4 newtons x 1.2376 meters = 4.9504 joules in 103 seconds

4.9504 joules / 103 seconds =  0.048 joules per second
                    or
0.048 watts mechanical out put
                   and
0.01 amp x 4.2 volts = 0.042 watts electrical input.
... ... ... ... ... ...
  Opinion
too close to call unless mechanical output is actually 2 times this 0.048 watts ?

  nice job

... ... ... ... ... ...
self quote from above...
"Note...
It looks like only 1/2 (one direction) of the the back and forth motion of the
output is being utilized.

If this is correct, then the out put is actually 2 times more than is being shown in
the video ? "
... ... ... ... ... ...
Addendum.... maybe / maybe not 

because we don't know how much using both motions would
affect the input power used.

[Floor]

SORRY, I AM NOT TRYING TO IMPROVE THE COP BUT THE FUNCTIONALITY.

Cool / understood

[MagnaProp]

I like very much what Ray is doing here. Reminds me of the motion I discovered in 2010 when magnets are perpendicular to each other. Was very difficult for me to sleep that night thinking all I had to do the next day was complete the circle and around and around it would go on it own. Needless to say that didn't happen and when I tried to get it to work by alternating the magnets as in GoToLuke's wheel and rotate my "flipper" magnet to keep it moving along, I couldn't get past the "sticky" spot to my satisfaction to warrant further tests.

Rays device shows several advantages over anything I was thinking of back then.

[synchro1]

Both Ray and Gotoluc demonstrate gain transfering rotary to reciprocal magnet motion. Kundel achived the same result and has been supressed by overtakers.

[Floor]

For the record ...

Ray (in his video) is hopeful of but has not at this time "claimed", a
gain in the device.

GotoLuc (of the device in his video, which I posted the link to) after review,
concluded that his method / device did not show a gain.

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...  NEXT

                   IF

Ray's device as presented, is in fact functioning at unity, (i.e. if my estimation of the
lifting distance of the 172 coins was correct)

                   and

Ray's electric power in, measurements are accurate.

                   then

1. Given that the driving electric motor functions at less than unity, his device
is demonstrating cyclic work from magnets.

2. If the pulley which lifts the coins were made to be eccentric, in such a manner as to
match the      force change   to   distance change       curve of the magnetic forces...

                       then also (and by consideration of  this factor solely)

the device is exhibiting cyclic work from magnets.

3.  When the energy expended to cause acceleration against the inertia of the coin mass
is taken into account,
                       
                          then also (and by consideration of  this factor solely)

his device is demonstrating cyclic work from magnets.

4. Even if my estimation of the height lifted is an over estimation, it remains to be
seen, whether or not the device is O.U. or can be made more efficient.