The interaction between two magnets is something that has been tested by many and every test that I have made indicates that it cannot work because the fields are circular and all forces are accounted for in any direction.
I have recently found something that has not been covered in this forum and I'm very excited about what it may result in.

It also gave me a new insight into a new all magnet motor design that just might also be possible using this concept. I'm not going to post the new concept until I can verify that this concept has good merit but I will say that I have the first prototype fully constructed except for the ceramic bearings that were lost in the mail.

Lumen

The interaction between two magnets is something that has been tested by many and every test that I have made indicates that it cannot work because the fields are circular and all forces are accounted for in any direction.
I have recently found something that has not been covered in this forum and I'm very excited about what it may result in.

The magnetic far field is generally circular not unlike electric fields but not the near field, it is not circular in any science textbook unless the magnet is circular. So anyone who has actually read a science textbook should know better than to make false statements that the field is circular in every case... it is not.

Regarding "something that cannot work", everything we know today was thought impossible 1000 years ago. Everyone said that cannot work, it is impossible and as we know all the critics were completely wrong about almost everything. Thus in a very real sense the critics own ignorance to the facts becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy for them which is why they never accomplish anything of substance. They are what we call losers in layman's terms because history has shown they generally always lose. They are always saying you cannot do that... but someone always does.

As well many critics like to take everything out of context and move the goal posts. Logically it may be very difficult to take two magnets and have them move or interact in such a way as to produce excess work or energy. However we know an external field from a coil can manipulate a permanent magnetic field. As such if the work to manipulate a field is less than the work the manipulated fields produce then extra work is possible. The mistake most people make is in thinking they somehow know or understand every conceivable way in which the fields could interact. There are literally millions of possible combinations of interactions thus we can presume most critics are wrong which is most often the case.

The fact is we do not know, that is the only correct answer... we do not know yet but I suspect we will soon.

The patent which I've referenced earlier gives exact measurement data.
They indicate, that there was a net gain of the energy of approximately 20 %.
It also even provides some dimensions of the magnets and  an interesting design
of the set up of two magnets with springs.
The sprigs  work as an energy storage, allowing completing the cycle.

I used to think that power could be generated in a symmetric field like the homopolar generator is thought to operate, or how the homopolar motor is thought to operate, but in fact neither operates as thought.

Once you know how they actually operate, things become more understandable and there is new insight into how the field must be controlled in any attempt to build a magnet motor.

Can you shed some light on how they actually work?

They analysed forces between permanent magnets but not the work. Only ∫F.dl is significant. As the magnetic flux is conservative (according to conventional Maxwell electromagnetism), work is conserved over a cycle. If they have a real experimental setup that works, it can't be explained by conventional Maxwell electromagnetism and therefore the explanation they give is not correct.
Same remark applies to US patent 2011/0198958: if a permanent magnet motor works, a new theory is needed, the old one being not relevant for explaining this fact, question of pure internal consistency of the conventional theory.
So we have to wait for the experimental evidence.

Here is the patent: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20110198958A1/en

and a picture of the test device. I also attached (below pic) a full size zip file of the picture as it's too large for the page.

Regards
Luc

F6flt

They analysed forces between permanent magnets but not the work. Only ∫F.dl is significant. As the magnetic flux is conservative (according to conventional Maxwell electromagnetism), work is conserved over a cycle.

The work component relates to change, flux can be conserved yet change in many ways. Whenever a permanent magnet moves flux is conserved yet the field changes within a space.

If they have a real experimental setup that works, it can't be explained by conventional Maxwell electromagnetism and therefore the explanation they give is not correct.

Speculation because your assuming it can't be explained simply because you don't understand it. Which begs the question...is everything you do not understand un-explainable and a violation of the laws of physics and the conservation of energy?. I think it's a little woo woo how the critics say they believe in the conservation of energy yet the moment they see something they do not understand they are always the first to say it must have been violated?. Obviously they do not believe it or not understand it.

Same remark applies to US patent 2011/0198958: if a permanent magnet motor works, a new theory is needed, the old one being not relevant for explaining this fact, question of pure internal consistency of the conventional theory.

A new theory does not imply a violation of physics or a violation of the conservation of energy. We could easily build a new theory by applying the laws we have in a different way using new insight, we do it all the time in science.

So we have to wait for the experimental evidence.

Wait?, why?.