continuing...
                    The shearing work measurements...
27.
28.
29.  20 g      --- 95.5 deg      25 x 2            = 50
30.  10 g      --- 100 deg       15 x 4.5         = 67.5
31.    5 g      --- 107 deg       7.5 x 7           = 52.5
                                                          total = 11293

Had we stopped our measurements at 95 degrees in both of the measurement sets
instead of continuing on to 107 degrees in the one set...

the ratio would have been 11173 (sliding) to 9998 (direct pull)
                               because 11293 - 120 =  11173 
at 100 degrees  there are 67.5 units of work  +  the 52.5 units of work at 107 degrees
                        (67.5 +52.5 = 120)
                                    and
                        11173 - 9998 = 1175 (still greater than zero).

                   See ? 
                        We are not done yet !
                              floor

So..
The travel of a magnet (A) due to magnetic forces can be of a shorter
length than some other magnet's (magnet B's) travel due to magnetic
force and yet ...

if the average force along the travel of magnet (A) is greater
than the average force along the travel of magnet (B),  there can
be more energy present in the action of that magnet (A) than is
present in the action of magnet(B).

There is more potential to do mechanical work in the sliding magnet action
(presented / measured) than is present in the direct (face to face) action.

Next, we see if it can be looped as a net gain in work from magnets ?

Disappointment again here, no spiny thingy !
Just cyclical work from magnets with a net energy gain ?

       later ...
         Always remember that ..
           While time might fly like an arrow,
              fruit flies like a banana.

Why ?

   Back face / far field interaction...

        video below

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7f0md2

               OK to start at 6 min 05 seconds

Should use cube or bar magnets as recommended  in the "EDEN project" PDF,

    @ https://slideplayer.com/slide/3989835/

rather than wafer shaped ones...
                     and  / or use a longer out put stroke

     floor

Utilizing a longer out put stroke would decrease the input needed
to move from position two to position three and also increase the
output in moving from position three to position four.

For this reason and....

 if / when, the magnets used were to be of cube shape, as in the Eden
project PDF, it looks like a net gain is possible here.

Maybe 69% more energy as mechanical work out, than the mechanical work
which was input.....

           EDIT 12/08/21

10358 input
11293 output
935 difference

935 is x % of 10358 ?

100 / 10358 = 0.00965

0.00965  x 10358 = 9.026839 % O.U.

10358 (input) is      91.72 % of        11293 (output)

      @ Lota

Kenneth C. Kozeka / the EDEN project PDF

Are already liked to earlier in this topic
                            @
 https://overunity.com/18551/magnet-shear-to-direct-pull-work-ratio/msg553381/#msg553381

                    Thanks for the additional link to that  project / PDF.
                                                      and
                                     Also thanks for the link to the patent.
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

The magnet actions / motions, I measured are similar to those shown in the patent.
That device is a continuous motion device.

The gear and shaft linkages in the patent drawing, indicate that the magnets must
all be moving , when any one of them is moving.
... ... ... ... ... ... .. .. .. .. .... ...
The interactions I have described are such that, an action begins, that action completes,
a next action begins, that next action completes and so on.  All motion comes completely
to a stop, then a / the next motion begins.
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
     however...
One might also slow an action down so much so (very near to the end of its motion) that it
serves practically the same purpose as does arresting completely that motion.

It seem as though  Kozeka's method is  intended to accomplish this by means of variable
gearing or pulleys.  This is described else where in the patent.
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
    Other wise....
     yes, they are both about lateral and direct magnet attractions.

note..

I find only a U.S application for a patent not a
patent its self.

                  floor