Energy conservation violation

First of all, I would like to say that this model is NOT a perpetual motion. It will stop eventually. What I want to say here is that the output useful work seems to be greater than input energy
My system consists of 2 elements. Each element is a cylinder put on an axle. There are two permanent magnets stuck on each cylinder, with their north poles are faced outside. In the youtube clip that I will show you below, you can see the magnets of the first element are painted in blue, while those of the second one are crossed with X.
I turn the cylinders slightly so that the north poles of the magnets are faced each other. Then, the thrust between magnets make the cylinders rotate.
A single cylinder on an axle itself is not the system. It is an element of the system, which consists of 2 at all. Therefore, the thrust between magnets is not external force which affect system. It is comprehended as internal force between 2 elements of the system. The thrust from the first cylinder makes the second rotate, and the thrust from the second, in its turn, make the first rotate. Each component act as the cause to make the other rotate, and it acquires the affect from the other to rotate.
While the input work of the system originates from a small force making cylinders moving short arc, and make magnets facing each other, the output dynamic energy is much higher. You can see in the clip that both cylinders rotate many circles, which create output useful work much greater than the work to make the magnets facing each other.
Here is the link of my clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQUPaHE0vCg&feature=youtu.be
Your comments are welcomed to determine that if energy conservation is violated in this case or not
Thanks
Thinh Nghiem from Vietnam

Try and build the system to generate excess energy for actual work (powering something electrical for instance) and watch what happens.

Ok so this guy is posting this stuff again. Any thoughts on what his/her MO is? Traffic to a youtube site?

What does MO mean?
I simply estimate like this
Input energy came from the force of my hand to turn the cylinders so that their magnets face each other.
And the output work results from the rotating many rounds of the cylinders, which is much greater than my input work
What happen if I can improve my model, so that the rotating can last at least 5 minutes ?

MO = method of operation.
Your method is very sloppy.

What does MO mean? I simply estimate like this Input energy came from the force of my hand to turn the cylinders so that their magnets face each other. And the output work results from the rotating many rounds of the cylinders, which is much greater than my input work What happen if I can improve my model, so that the rotating can last at least 5 minutes ?
Give it a shot and see. We'll give you a fair hearing. (Fair is the watchword.) Lois

I have plan to improve my model so that it can rotate longer, for example 1 hour. Do you think it is economical. It can be used in a rotor of a generator. We do not need fuel, just our manual force, and the rotor will spin for a long time to generate current. Is it OK?

What does MO mean? I simply estimate like this Input energy came from the force of my hand to turn the cylinders so that their magnets face each other. And the output work results from the rotating many rounds of the cylinders, which is much greater than my input work What happen if I can improve my model, so that the rotating can last at least 5 minutes ?
MO is method or mode of operating, and is slang for 'what's this guy up to'. If you seriously consider "force of my hand" as something to base anything on, then you have no clue what you're doing. And hence, I want to know what your gimmick is...like getting hits on your youtube video.

You need to measure the energy input and the energy output.