magnetically driven engines

[Kegereneku]

Mumble, do I have to explain you again that patent aren't proof that something work ? They are simply a paper that guarantee you get rights&recognition over some use of the SPECIFIC design you claim to have invented.
To do so the office need to be able to distinguish specifically why and how the proposal vary from other "engine" so they don't accidentally give you credit for someone's else patent.

The first link you provided explain in length why the requirement was increased for claim of "free energy". It filter out the many idiots who believe to have a "free energy generator" just because they suffer from wishful thinking.

You aren't being misunderstood, your arguments are just poor and unconvincing for those who understand the topic (I have an electrical Engineering background myself).

Keg, you continue to rant about a "proof" it works : tell me ; what would be an acceptable manifestation of proof? A video? A blueprint you can use?
Or do you demand its mass produced first?

Anything that do pass a properly done experiment, or produce irrefutable result, or pass peer-reviewed testing among the scientific community.
It's not necessarily a prototype, a theoretical/mathematical model that explain it using our current physic-model or a new physics model that satisfy the Correspondence Principle while allowing "free energy". Would also be acceptable (and world breaking)

My turn: What would it take for you to buy an authentic Free-Energy-generator(c)? How do you test it before agreeing to mass producing it?
You aren't going to buy/sell one without checking right ? How would YOU check that it really does what it claim to do? (a result that can't be faked of course)

You said previously it was movement introducing energy : but this can be dis-proven with say, a web allowing the magnet to pull, but not allowing it to contact the metal, and releasing the web to allow it to pull further : where is the energy introduced there? And what about the energy scaling in and of itself? What if energy used to introduce an item into the magnetic field is less than the energy observed in the item moving?

Go there: https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/themes/whynot.htm
Ctrl+F search for : "But don't magnets have unlimited stored energy?"
Then for : "I've made a wheel with carefully positioned magnets"

its multiple people showing videos of working prototypes which nobody who denies ever bothers to test themselves.

What or who say those prototypes "worked"? The inventor who might be lying? The video that can be faked in numerous way?

Peer-reviewed scientific journal actually do test device like theses sometime (those with proper paperwork at least). Up to today every single "prototype" failed (predictably) despite testing it exactly like the inventor claimed, or their test were aborted because the inventor "method of testing" included elements that prevent a correct test (things like "don't mind the hidden not-a power-cable-I-swear leading to a 110V outlet", "don't test for more than a set time (because the hidden battery will run out)" or "test it outside during a sunny day") (edit)

If laboratory PAID to test all poorly-thought design or sham (that they already know won't work because they are more intelligent than the inventor), they would go bankrupt.

I've not been pushing that they are strictly perpetual energy machines. Maybe they aren't.
[...]
My argument was you could MAKE an engine with magnets, to which you saying its never demonstrated free energy is nothing more than a non sequitur. It does not address the issue

the point was its an engine DRIVEN by magnets : I am willing to admit, magnets might be under 100% efficiency for driving a turbine

You did, maybe you don't realize that it amount to the same thing.

Your ideas sum up to making an engine produce torque energy using static permanent magnet (while not pouring any energy) with the hope that it produce more energy than it took to create them.
You didn't talked about using (permanent) magnet to store energy, you specifically described producing more spin torque (and so energy) than used to create the device.
So we've been telling you that it doesn't work and tried to explain you why (and why you can't trust any video on the internet).

First it was magnets could not project their fields in such a manner to continue  a spinning motion
Then it was magnets need outside energy to obey the laws of physics
Then it was it cannot exist because laws of physics go against it, despite what any test could ever say
Now its wrong because its not a VERIFIED free energy machine

Correcting your errors here :
- (Permanent) Magnet STILL cannot project their fields in such a manner as to produce a continuing spinning motion. It didn't changed.
- (Electromagnetic) magnet STILL need outside energy to produce a spinning motion. (and permanent magnet still need to be physically moved around (using energy) to make somehing spin)
- It STILL cannot exist (the way you claim to work) because laws of physics go against it, currently no test ever demonstrated otherwise
- It's ALWAYS wrong to call (something) a "free energy machine" unless it is VERIFIED in a proper irrefutable way to be one.

EXPERIMENT REPORT N°3:
Still no success at making popcorn appear from nothing but the sharing of written message on the Internet.

Today I have tested using a single pop-corn in a suitable container, to ensure success I have made sure to file a patent about how it should work (pop-corn + written message over the internet = more pop-corn). It was accepted so surely it should have worked right?

And yet it didn't work and the popped corn didn't multiply. (I'm somehow relieved it didn't, what if it generated faster than I could eat them and never stopped?)
According to the Scientific Method I can't claim it worked if the experiment didn't actually work, too bad I planned to make video of it that read "How to make self-generating pop-corn"

I needed to formulate a new theory, so I'm now assuming that pop-corn need to be in a critical amount before they self-generate.
Next time I'll procure a bucket of fresh pop-corn, and observe if the bucket mass increase.


Edit: correcting a misleading syntax

[Perq]

The entire idea of energy in an isolated system being conserved, or that energy cannot be created is rather silly : What is defined as energy anyway? They often even count "potential" energy there, be it a spring, or a rock on a precipice waiting to fall : yet these are not "real" energies, it merely pointing at something which can have energy readily put into an observable state very easily, IE, weight drops, springs, whathaveyou.

but in terms of heat, motion, power, electric output, ect, these are different : they are indeed created from things.

The idea of "potential" energy, is not real energy often, but rather a prediction of energy to be created based on the understanding of physics. Its a useful term don't get me wrong : without the idea of potential energy, we could not make many things work, since we could not predict the exerted force of engines, firearms, bows, ect.

But these are not energies in form of heat, velocity, electrical current, ect (chemical storage of energy is one, but this itself is very different from a boulder on a cliff : which is itself energized by the downward force towards earth exhibited on all matter)

As an engineer I cringe reading all of this. :@ You should definitely do some leg work here, read some stuff and try to get some information beforehand.

Energy being conserved is not rather silly. You simply misunderstand the concept. Compressed spring or rock waiting to fall are both REAL energies. Energy is state function. Potential energy from a rock in gravitational field is the same as electrons being on certain energy level on the atom's core. Again - both are energies. Energy doesn't have to be movement, sound or other things that you can sense as a human.

Energies are not created from anything. They are merely changing it forms. Potential energy of object with a mass transforms into kinetic energy, only to turn into heat when that object falls onto the ground. Galvanic chemical potential is turned into electric current. All of these things have their driving forces (so to speak). These are imbalances that exist in spite of laws found in nature.
These include mass that is not next to each other (gravity), difference in density, concentration, electric charge, pressure, temperature and so on.

When you have those differences, stuff can happen. And when this stuff happens that difference gets smaller and smaller, until you reach equalibrium (of temperature, pressure, density and so on). As you may already noticed, these processes will go on into one direction, on their own. To turn them back, you need to put that energy back into them (pick the rock up, which will cost you energy).
When you get your mind around that, you discover term of entropy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

In other words, there is no process that can take place in magnetic field that will ever create energy on its own. You need something that will drive it. This is how you can, for example, generate electricity. But that is nowhere near free as you put it. To do so, you must constantly put energy into it. So, in fact, you are merely using magnetic field to change one form of energy (mechanical) into other (electric). No energy was generated.
Magnetic field is merely... a field. If magnets were able to generate energy based on their ability to attract each other, you might as well just build something that uses gravitational field.