Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze

[yfree]

OK Yfree. You sound as if you've done it. Can you prove it?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
  Prove it.
If you prove it, we'll all replicate.

All I did was to measure the field distribution in the spool type device, with circular neodymium magnets forming the axle of the spool. The field had highest intensity at the perimeter of the magnetic steel disk and was decreasing toward the centre of the disk. This is exactly as the paper says.
The field was measured close to the inner disk surface, where the active material will be positioned (not middle between the disks). This is all for now.
However, verpies claims that this is the other way round. I do not see how.

[yfree]

Oh, the radial flux density gradient exists, all right - it's just in the opposite direction.
I verified it experimentally, too.

The way it is analyzed in the paper is flawed.
I agree that the two parallel disks can be conceptually decomposed into many concentric cylinders.
However I stop agreeing when it is written that a magnetic flux distributed over the crossectional area of a larger cylinder leads to a greater flux density than the same flux distributed over a smaller area. of a smaller cylinder... and that is without considering the effect of the extra reluctance that the flux has to travel to get from the central magnet to the more outer cylinders.

You must have measured the field distribution centrally between the disks. This is of no interest.
The field has to be measured close to the inner surface of the disks.

[verpies]

However, verpies claims that this is the other way round. I do not see how.

Simply, magnetic flux density B=Φ/A

Since the crossectional area of the outer cylinder (A₂) is greater than the area of the inner cylinder (A₁) then it follows that Φ/A₂ < Φ/A₁ and respectively B₂<B₁

The above reasoning assumes that the flux Φ supplied to the outer cylinder, by the central coaxial magnet, is the same as the flux supplied to the inner cylinder,
In fact the outer cylinder receives less flux because the path from the magnet to the outer cylinder (through the ferromagnetic material) is longer thus the reluctance of this path is higher and according to the Hopkinson Law Φ=MMF/R, the flux supplied to the outer cylinder is lower. (where the coaxial central magnet/coil is the source of MMF).
Note that all of the flux paths from the magnet to the outer cylinders are shared with the flux paths to the inner cylinders, but the flux paths to the outer cylinders are longer (more reluctance)

[jbignes5]

 And now yfree you will see that he didn't do anything. His math is telling him it is not so. Verpies is an pencil engineer. He does very few experiments if any at all.


This is what has kept us from looking and saying What is going on here. Very few experiment anymore. Very few confirm that what has been proposed is actually reality. Some just blindly believe and that is all the effort you will get from them. Well actually they save a lot of energy pounding on tables saying this theory is the Right one instead of actually doing the experiment. They don't want to know the truth they are ok with the theories they have. And because they have "Math" behind them and we can not see the real event then no one can challenge their beliefs. No matter what we show as experimental proof.

The part that gets me is they always focus on the magnetic but don't ever look at the electric. Even though both phenomena are present and active.

Lets check something here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0wbEl7caTY&feature=bf_prev&list=PLAAB73CD55374CE8A

What if we don't move the magnet but cause a magnetic shield by shorting a coil then unshorting a coil wound around a magnet. Would this get us somewhere? What if we replace the magnet with another coil?

Also pay special attention to the emf and what it really is. Electro is the key word. Potential difference is another key aspect. What initiates the current?

[wasabi]

And because they have "Math" behind them and we can not see the real event then no one can challenge their beliefs. No matter what we show as experimental proof.
The part that gets me is they always focus on the magnetic but don't ever look at the electric. Even though both phenomena are present and active.

It's ridiculous how you can plug your aversion to math and your obsession with the electric field into a purely magnetostatic problem. 
Also, I am surprised that this time you limited yourself only to personal bashing and skipped the usual hero worship.

Why don't we make a bet that you will stop posting to this thread, once and for all, if the flux density at the disk surface indeed is decreasing with increasing distance (>r₁) from the symmetry axis in the Magnetic Spool system mentioned by yfree.

I will accept an empirical or theoretical proof to the magnetostatic problem defined in the PDF attachment.
Of course, an empirical evidence always trumps a theoretical proof.

Our peers can be our judges. The loser leaves this thread permanently.

Do you accept?