Magnet Myths and Misconceptions

[Newton II]

(And it's spelt "genius" ...  )

Agreed that you are a genius(not genious).

1) A charged sphere when set in motion will produce a magnetic field. You said 'yes'.

   Now think about a sphere fixed with  generator coils which can receive the magnetic flux suitably when magnetic  field is produced on
   the  sphere. Charge the sphere to the full with any type of charge, fix it to a speed motor or pulse motor which developes high speed
   with negligible input energy on 'no load'.

   When you start the motor, the charged sphere rotates and developes magnetic field which varies from zero to maximum.  If you switch
   off the motor and halt the sphere, magnetic field collapses from maximum to zero. In both cases  the generator coils fixed to the sphere
   generate electricity as per induction rules.    A huge magnetic field rising and collapsing, will generate considerable energy in the coils. At 
   the same time the rotating sphere will not experience any  slowing down force from the generator coils because these coils are fixed on
   the sphere and will be  rotating with sphere.

   Hence there will be no load on motor even if you apply electrical load on coils.

   So, you have a generator which generates electricity without experiencing lenz's slowing down force. Your input  power to the motor will
   be only to overcome friction and any other losses which will be negligible.    Whereas  in  a normal generator when you apply electrical
   load,  lenz's forces corresponding to the load act on the prime mover  to conserve energy.

   Hence you have a overunity generator.


2) Reason for why  mass falls down instead of up is well known but reason for 'why moving positive charge doesnot produce anti-magnetic
    field' is not known.

    A moving positive charge not producing anti-magnetic field indicates that positive and negative charges are not  different in characters
    (don't know the right word) but different only in directions. Graphically a positve charge  emits 'lines of force' in outward direction and
    electron should receive lines of force inward direction.

    So, theoritically by bending these fields (or lines of force) by repulsion you can change the nature of charges.   I mean  you can make a
    negatively charged proton and positively charged electron!!

3) I don't believe that any generator can produce a DC as pure as produced by a battery. Generator can produce only a  pulsed DC.   I
    personally don't believe that a generator works on the principle of 'cutting of the flux'.     It works  on the principle of 'on & off' of the
    flux.    Anyway my knowledge in this field is limited and I leave it you.

PS : Now are you prepared to hammer a crowbar on my....

[Magluvin]

So we put a current through a wire. Electrons flow in one direction and their mag fields also have 'common' orientation around the wire depending on electron flow direction.  Thats odd.  This must mean that the electron has a positive and negative 'electrical' sides to them also.

Mags

[Qwert]

^{snapped for long text, see the origin above}

Before you make another question, I really, REALLY recommend you to see the site I mentioned somewhat earlier: amasci.com

[Newton II]

So we put a current through a wire. Electrons flow in one direction and their mag fields also have 'common' orientation around the wire depending on electron flow direction.  Thats odd.  This must mean that the electron has a positive and negative 'electrical' sides to them also.

Mags

You are exactly right.   Nothing in this universe is 'mono'  everything is 'duo'.   Positive and negative sides exist at all points in an electric field just as north and south poles exist at all points in a magnetic field.     It is only the direction that matters.

[Turbo]

Well, i got some news for yall.

You are all WRONG...  and especially that tinsel twat know it all.

Beginning to understand?? haha give me a break !! your not even close to beginning

Forget everything and i do mean everything you believe and start over.
And don't be fooled by know it all's they know nothing, they think they do but in reality they know nothing.

Charles Proteus Steinmetz could be a good start.
If you really want some answers, Absorb his works, especially the dielectric part and the fibrous part and the part about reflection and once you understand that you will have no more questions, and you can immediately pick out those few that really gained some understanding.
Also it makes things a lot more logical in stead of discussing and speculation combined with learned false assumptions.