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.

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)

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?

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)

I am sorry, not so fast.
You are applying Hopkinson's law where it cannot be applied.
To describe the situation properly you have to go back to Maxwell's equations or use a modeling tool like FEMM or to measure it where it should be measured.
The magnetic field is strongly guided by the disks and tends to exit mostly at the disk perimeter. This creates the anomaly. Close to the disk surface, B, the component perpendicular to the disk surface in particular, is highest at the disk perimeter and diminishes towards the centre of the disk. Far away from the disk surface it is the other way round, but this is not of our interest. Here is a measured example.

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.

I think the Kapanadze device (and this thread) needs more promotion. At least half of the world population should make TK experiments. Therefore design some red stickers ...

+++ Free Energy available +++ Look for the Kapanadze device +++ Figure out how it works +++ It's plain and simple +++

... and stick them on everywhere. Maybe a full-page advertisement in the New York Times will do also.

Regards

@all

If it is possible to get back to our real reasons for being here, I need to clarify something.

OK, so I have a question but have to describe the set-up first.

I have a 120vac mains line. (two wires only - hot and neutral)(Yes I am very careful - lol).
I have a ground that goes to the house mains ground. (G1)
I have an isolation transformer 120vac/120vac.
I have two FWBRs (F1 and F2) each with DC sides D1+ and D1- and D2+ and D2-.

The AC goes to the primary and on that primary is also added F1 on the AC side with DC output D1+ and D1-.
On the secondary is added only the F2 on the AC side with DC output D2+ and D2-.
I have a 120vac light bulb with wires B1 and B2.

When I connect the AC plug to the mains and connect the bulb to different locations, here is what happens.

1) B1 and B2 to D1+ and D1-. Bulb lit - Expected
2) B1 and B2 to D2+ and D2-. Bulb lit - Expected
3) B1 to D2+ and B2 to G1, Bulb not lit - Expected
4) B1 to D2- and B2 to G1, Bulb not lit - Expected
Now...
5) B1 to D1+ and B2 to G1, Bulb lit - Not Expected - Hmmmmm
6) B1 to D1- and B2 to G1, Bulb lit - Not Expected - Hmmmmm

So the question is if the bridge rectifier receives AC and the output is DC, why is there a difference between 3-4 and 5-6.

If DC is DC, then why the difference. Unless DC is not DC under certain conditions.

The above scenario takes the basic connections of the 2004 device where.....

The transformer is the visible transformer with the diode plate as F2 have output D2+ and D2-.
The F1 bridge connections to the primary is the AC5 line.
So this is a basic copy suggesting that there is a FWBR in the tin can.

I have always thought that once the rectifier passes the AC to DC, there is no turning back or going back. So how did 5-6 occur??

I am again doing simple test copies of the 2004 device, going one step at a time and will add more steps as I progress through the basics.

wattsup

@all

If it is possible to get back to our real reasons for being here, I need to clarify something.

OK, so I have a question but have to describe the set-up first.

I have a 120vac mains line. (two wires only - hot and neutral)(Yes I am very careful - lol).
I have a ground that goes to the house mains ground. (G1)
I have an isolation transformer 120vac/120vac.
I have two FWBRs (F1 and F2) each with DC sides D1+ and D1- and D2+ and D2-.

The AC goes to the primary and on that primary is also added F1 on the AC side with DC output D1+ and D1-.
On the secondary is added only the F2 on the AC side with DC output D2+ and D2-.
I have a 120vac light bulb with wires B1 and B2.

When I connect the AC plug to the mains and connect the bulb to different locations, here is what happens.

1) B1 and B2 to D1+ and D1-. Bulb lit - Expected
2) B1 and B2 to D2+ and D2-. Bulb lit - Expected
3) B1 to D2+ and B2 to G1, Bulb not lit - Expected
4) B1 to D2- and B2 to G1, Bulb not lit - Expected
Now...
5) B1 to D1+ and B2 to G1, Bulb lit - Not Expected - Hmmmmm
6) B1 to D1- and B2 to G1, Bulb lit - Not Expected - Hmmmmm

So the question is if the bridge rectifier receives AC and the output is DC, why is there a difference between 3-4 and 5-6.

If DC is DC, then why the difference. Unless DC is not DC under certain conditions.

The above scenario takes the basic connections of the 2004 device where.....

The transformer is the visible transformer with the diode plate as F2 have output D2+ and D2-.
The F1 bridge connections to the primary is the AC5 line.
So this is a basic copy suggesting that there is a FWBR in the tin can.

I have always thought that once the rectifier passes the AC to DC, there is no turning back or going back. So how did 5-6 occur? ?

I am again doing simple test copies of the 2004 device, going one step at a time and will add more steps as I progress through the basics.

wattsup

On the primary side the potential is in reference to the ground potential, so you have no floating potentials.
The potential difference created for you by the energy company in regards to ground.

Maybe you can draw the circuit? That way it is better to see how you connected everything.

when Kapanadze discovered the phenomenon (burst of energy )  did not know how to use it. the first thing he tought  was to use it to drive an generator.replacement it with a coil came after (amplifying the alternate current 50 hz).his rotating device is similar to the  Hendershot motor.we have to start  building the "receptor".HOW DO WE KNOW IF WE GOT THE CORRECT IMPULS???  we are in a dark room looking one nail.it s only matter of time....