Persistent-current destroys a theory about 'propagation' of electrical-current

[ayeaye]

There is something called space, and the magnetic field is a property of it.

No.

[postingsite]

Still don't know - .

-  If you use thicker wire, does the surrounding electromagnetic-field shrink .

Also

There is something called space, and the magnetic field is a property of it.

What if electromagnetic radiation is actually ripples in aether-soup, a 3d version of pond ripples,  an effect that may even trick science tests that prove otherwise .

About 2 maybe 3 years ago I read an article about a currently existing and built,  mobile-generator based on persistent-current, in the photo it was large, and mounted on a large truck .
  I am no longer able to find any information about it .

Maybe they didn't know about claimed self-powered-motor-generators, or maybe it was useful since it would have provided a totally smooth current like a battery,

I think or assume it was only used to provide a brief powerful pulse for things that need that,  I doubt it can continuously provide stable power .

[F6FLT]

Like what about two magnets repulsing each other?

Two magnets repulsing (or attracting) each other exploit the magnetic potential energy of their relative start positions. In the final positions, the field around the magnets has changed, there is less energy in the field, the energy difference has been used.
You must use a mechanical energy to put them back to their start position and restore the field energy and the associated magnetic potential energy.

It's exactly the same with 2 capacitor plates attracting each other, they tend to reduce their starting potential energy.
It is exactly the same with the potential gravitational energy of a mass falling on earth from a certain altitude.

These are commonplace facts that never involve orbital electrons.
Electrons orbiting the nucleus of an atom don't provide work.

[F6FLT]

No.

But it is. The magnetic field is a vector defined at a position in space, as Turbo said in other words (in spacetime, exactly).
It's a definition, with a formalism, not an objective reality.
If you don't agree define another concept to qualify your reality, like "magnetic gizmo" and define clearly its properties otherwise it's only gibberish.

[ayeaye]

But it is. The magnetic field is a vector defined at a position in space, as Turbo said in other words (in spacetime, exactly).
It's a definition, with a formalism, not an objective reality.
If you don't agree define another concept to qualify your reality

I explained here how even induction comes from the movement of charged particles and electrostatic forces between them  https://overunity.com/18033/modeling-induction-with-a-rotating-blower/

No you are wrong, when an object falls to the ground, then the Earth's gravitational field provides work. That we need the same energy to lift that object to the same height, that's due to symmetry of the gravitational field, it's spherical. Which means it can do work, but cannot do continuous work. But magnetic field is not symmetric, as it has two poles, this asymmetry is again due to electrons orbiting the nucleus of the atom. And every asymmetric field can do continuous work.