oops, One more typo fix.

I'm not an expert, but I think my observations and calculations are correct.

Some observations.   (with corrections, typo fixes and changes )

1. We don't know the exact lifting height of the 72 coins.
2. A long run time (maybe 10 minutes ? ) 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 to do lifting.

If this is correct, then the out put is actually 2 times more than is being shown in
the video ?   But then again, using both of these motions will affect the input power
as well.

calculations
1 U. S. quarter dollar coin weighs 5.67 grams
5.67 grams per coin, times 72 coins.

5.67  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.
... ... ... ... ... ...

 



                                IF
Ray's device as presented, is in fact functioning at unity, (that is to say, if my estimation of the
lifting distance of the 72 coins was correct)   ....  note...  typo corrected as 72 coins from 172
                                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.

The current draw of the device bounces between.01 and .02 it appears to me. Load/no load current draw.

The current draw of the device bounces between.01 and .02 it appears to me. Load/no load current draw.

Definitely there is a fluctuation in amperage early in the video.

At 4 min and 35 seconds in the video, (once the full weight of 72 coins has been loaded )
the amperage has stabilized at 0.01 .
          also
At 5 minutes and  03 seconds when output motion is manually arrested,

1. the amperage drops below 0.01 and
2. the rotating element begins to accelerate.

I seems that the maximum mechanical load upon the spinning motor, occurs when
the flip flopping magnets are in the mid range of their motion ?

Would be nice if he had power supply with higher resolution display. At such low power 2 ma is difference between success and failure. I imagine it’s closer to .02 than .01 if I were to guess. That’s also provided your calculations are correct, which I’m in no position to doubt. I’m not and expert either.

Rays device / video here (the subject of this topic)

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4J8uPhKwjG4

444 views per day on average of this topic.

Largely by lazy surfers and coach from the arm of their chair boys.
With some tiny bit of good criticism / observation here as well.
.............
344 views of this video below, as of today

                  https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x728wd9

Let see how many hits on it by tomorrow.
It's not monetized...
... ... ... ... ...
This is the / an,  add on / modification of this post ...

444 average no of views per day x 5 days = 2220

but now its up from 2220 to 3323 views.

About 1,100 more views of this topic since the immediately above part was posted today
(week end), but only 30 new views of the video (on daily motion).
    30  / 1,100 =  0.0272 
Lazy surfers indeed.

Side view.
Maybe the main magnet is just a cylinder without chunks cut out of it. Just a big piece of metal flashing put over the pole to reduce the stickiness? Green part being curved metal plating over the cylindrical magnet.

I don't know. A single motor only lifts the load.
But the load in the installation on the right rises and falls.
Work in this case is zero.

"But the load in the installation on the right rises and falls.
Work in this case is zero."

If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that the coins
fall after being lifted ?

One of his earlier videos address this question to some extent.

A ONE WAY RATCHET on the lift pulley axle would eliminate that
work out cancellation.
... ... ... ... ...
The flip flop magnets are under power in both directions.
Only one of those directions is used in his design.
Using both the flip and the flop, would double the number of times
the weight is lifted in a given time period.
... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Using both the flip and the flop will increase the load on the input motor ?

But I would wager that there will be an increase in efficiency, if the weight lifted is
decreased by 30 to 40 percent, BUT also both of these outputs are used.
... ... ... ... ... ... ...