I may have got help, preparing this post.
What is this about? Typically, you give the source of quotes to a) give credit where it's due, b) allow others to check it out and c) goes some way to showing that it's a real quote and not made up.
But also, typically, people don't have anonymous quotes as their entire interaction. If you agree with the quote you can say the thing yourself in your own words.
If I try and read the OP's, long wordy posts, I have to stop at near the beginning of the post.
E.g. The plasma, quadrupoles, magnetic superconducting, anti-gravity plasma flow lines, would couple with the reverse-magnet suns North to South, polar flow, ..............
But if I pass it through technologies, such as ....
Smells like GPT-2 to me
Or similar, (the particular version I use, seems to request that you DON'T give links to their stuff, for reasons (possibly because they are worried about legal implications, if it says bad or political things) ......), it actually seems to at least understand it, and give me some possibly useful posting information.
E.g. It might say something like:
"That's a pile of nonsense, the magnetic field lines would actually align. Please refer to the NASA website link provided, which clarified magnetic flows, within the suns plasma", etc.
I'm put into a dilemma. I don't want to post stuff I didn't write myself (directly), and pass it off as my own work. Also I can't link to it as such, anyway. Because it is the output of an AI (text processing of sorts) engine.
Although you have objected to me doing it or similar, in this thread. The reason I do it, is because the OP, is one extremely difficult, person. Who often/usually point blank bluntly refuses, to answer, even the shortest and simplest of questions, with a direct/applicable answer. So, any tool or aids, which help move this thread along to a conclusion (if that is even ever going to be possible), is good/useful, in my books.
Much of the things in the first 30 pages so far, should have been clearly explained, in the opening post.
My translation of the thread so far (with no help), is as follows:
The design goal is some kind of free-energy, perpetual motion machine, working on the basis that if you string together, a complicated word-salad, thet even the OP, seems to hint, they don't understand (or at least like reading it, especially as regards the patent pending bits).
Therefore, they (OP) can simply claim they have made a great invention.
Whereas the reality seems to be, the OPs lack (nearly total?), of actual real scientific skills/knowledge/experience, is allowing them to incorrectly believe they have made a great invention. Glossing over the fact, that it is extremely likely (pretty much a certainty), that it WON'T work, free of any energy use and/or perpetual motion concepts.
TL;DR
Great faith, rather than scientific judgement, seems to be powering (pun intentional) this, so called
invention.