The event horizon in gravity is a bit different from the event horizon in magnetism. Essentially, a traditional event horizon is created when gravity becomes so great that light cannot escape. The magnetic event horizon is different, but it has force acting in two directions depending in the charge of the particles when compared to an event horizon created by gravity bending space-time and acting in only one direction.
The benefit to us is that we can rip apart any known structure made of charged particles, which includes molecules, atoms, subatomic particles, and maybe even quarks. Without going straight into the how, energy-in - energy-out, or an efficiency debate, the magnetic event horizon varies depending on what you are ripping apart. There are different magnetic event horizons for ripping apart the nucleus of atoms, seperating the electrons from the nucleus of an atom, and ripping apart subatomic particles. Each event horizon is defined by the maximum amount of force necessary to accomplish each goal.
Because the field acts in two directions instead of one, it is more efficient than a gravitational field. It also makes it feasible to liberate the strong nuclear force, which means being able to turn anything, even waste into fuel that burns 100,000 times hotter than the same amount of radioactive material used in nuclear power. This means access to nearly unlimited energy and no more dependence on fossil fuels.
To address the energy-in - energy-out question: a black hole exhibits an enormous force and does work, yet it's the property of the gravitation field that does the work. The energy-in can remain constant forever and it will still do work yet no energy is consumed in the process. No matter how many trillion years you watch an isolated black hole, it will never stop or dimish its pull on the outside world. Therefore, fields can work without consuming energy.
So you're probably thinking, "how does this guy suggest we create an extremely powerful magnetic field that is either highly efficient or 100% efficient"? First we start with a toroid-shaped accelerator with a vacuum inside. We put electrons in the vacuum and we have two choices. Either we use an electrically repulsive force to keep the spinning electrons from hitting the walls or we use an equivalent amount of gravitational force (like a moon or star) to pull them towards the center. The speed of the electrons will either be limited by the repulsive force of the electrical charge on the inside walls of the toroid or the gravity of the object being used to confine them or a combination of both. The spinning of these electrons could be increased to near the speed of light over time with an equivalent amount of force holding them back.
The spinning in the vacuum creates no heat or friction. The field simply exists and acts on everything in it. If we're using electricity to confine the electrons, then some heat will be lost. However, I figured out a way to eliminate that problem too with some additional engineering. It's just too much information for the scope of this paper.
Just consider that this field is liberating an obsene amount of strong nuclear energy or electrons and the electrons in it will even seperate into up-quarks and down-quarks if it's generating a powerful enough event horizon to liberate the strong nuclear force. A small portion of the energy released can be used to maintain or strengthen the field. The rest can be stored in devices that maintain a magnetic envelope strong enough to hold the energy.
