Tesla's Pierce Arrow Electric Car Experiment of 1931

The following circuit simulation of a power supply lends credence to the possibility that Tesla's electric car experiment of 1931 may have involved a bank of high voltage capacitors, spark gaps or vacuum tubes acting as such, timing elements, and the inductive load of the AC motor coils contributing to the circuit's ability to provide its own power amplification from two small batteries. These two batteries do not provide any amperage, and thus do not provide any wattage. They merely provide a little voltage and are configured with the help of diodes and resistors to always be in a state of charging from the circuit rather than discharging to it. So, this design of mine undergoes no power supplied from batteries. It merely uses batteries as anchor weights, so to speak, to thwart this circuit's tendency to self-excite at an alarming rate if there were no batteries flanking two capacitors on either side of this circuit and their polarity positioned in the direction of current flow involving the inductive load and parallel to the discharging spark gaps (at the bottom of the schematic) configured to emulate neon bulbs. To preserve the batteries charged condition, I prevent their discharge into the circuit by placing diodes in reverse direction of the battery's current flow along with a 100 MΩ resistor to prevent rapid charging of each battery and merely top them off. Rotation of battery modules would probably have to be exercised to prevent their over-charging. A relay is provided to prohibit excessive growth of self-excitation lest this power supply fry itself. I've arbitrarily set its limit at 1.2 mA on the relay's coil which corresponds to around 350 kA on the motor coil.

The small binary text file, attached below, is designed to be imported into any one of these three JavaScript-based, electronic simulators...
http://vinyasi.info/ne
http://lushprojects.com/circuitjs/
http://falstad.com/circuit/

Or else, can be preloaded with the help of these two equivalent URLs...
http://is.gd/teslasbattery
http://vinyasi.info/ne?startCircuit=teslas-battery.txt

This simulation requires the user to regulate its activity by toggling any one of its switches into three possible states.

The first state, by default, discharges the motor coil whose oscilloscope readout of amps and volts are displayed below the circuit operating in a simulated time frame of 10 pico seconds. Since the text file's components have no precharged condition, then nothing will happen at first unless you click one of the toggle switches to step to its next state.

The second state runs the power supply in gain mode. It will slowly rise upwards until the third state is toggled, or until the relay disengages gain but without automatically self-toggling into the next state. The user must still do this on their own.

The third state discharges excess voltage that was required to self-excite toward whatever reasonable level of achievement is desired. The average units of volts per units of amps in this third state reduces to a less drastic condition of 40 to one. So, if the amps on the inductor reads one amp, the voltage on this same inductor would read around forty volts.

The third oscilloscope readout in the lower right is a wire adjacent to the relay coil since the simulator won't allow displaying this coil, directly. The purpose of viewing the activity of the relay coil is to insure that manual operation of this simulation satisfactorily allows adequate duration for the relay coil to discharge all of its voltage before the user decides to restart a new surge in step two, above. Failure to totally discharge the relay coil during stage one or three, or both, may inhibit surging this circuit's excitation to equally high levels as before if those levels are very high and near the default limit associated with this circuit when it was first loaded.

We'll probably never know what actually happened, or if it happened at all, between Nikola Tesla and his conjectured nephew, by the name of: Scarvo. But blending the two versions of this mysterious story lends more credibility to a high voltage bank of capacitors mistakenly thought to be batteries combined with Tesla's mysterious circuit put together in his hotel room immediately prior to his demonstration and then positioned in the dashboard slot where the glove compartment used to be.

I call this circuit design a House of Mirrors since the capacitors may be bouncing the information around endlessly in a closed loop with nowhere to go to dissipate itself since many of the instances of positive resistance also incorporate sufficient negative resistance at the same time to dominate the positive resistance and thus render an overall net result of self-excited gain. The spark gaps and motor coil (inductive load) provide acceleration driving self-excitation toward dangerous levels of self-destruction.

Notice, I did not say: bouncing energy around endlessly in a closed loop with nowhere else to go. It would be erroneous of me to think that energy is the only significant factor in electrodynamic behavior. Information is the other, just as relevant, factor. But unlike energy, information is not tied to matter and does not require energy for its transference from one atom of copper (in a wire) to the next. Mutual resonance, alone, among neighboring copper atoms (for instance) is enough for the successive rise and fall of energetic states of a copper atom's electrons in rapid succession giving the appearance of a ripple moving down a wire without any energy, or matter, actually doing the moving. We're pattern-recognition organisms and we fall for this misconception more times than we wish to embarrassingly want to admit.

Information may incarnate in many forms, as a: thought, a schematic sketched on paper, or else implemented in a simulator or the real world. This information requires the participation of copper atoms to successively rise and fall within the limits of endurance tolerated by a copper wire lest it vaporize into atomic sized particles of dust -- as having been demonstrated by Tesla in his lab. He knew about the atomic limit to the materials of construction and a circuit's ability to self-excite and capitalized on this potential nature of circuits to self-excite (whenever encouraged to do so), but also knew that for all practical purposes these atomic limits are actually limited by the electro-chemical strengths of the valence bonds between neighboring copper atoms or any other material hosting electrical excitation, be it: magnetic or electric, etc.

Thus, the argument of: energy IN must equal energy OUT is a non-argument in view of the fact that we haven't assessed the situation accurately enough to define electricity as a manifestation of wave mechanics in an electrodynamic medium involving both materially dependent energy, but also equally important involving immaterial information transferred across empty space using no presumed massless photons to do so. Mutual resonance among neighboring atoms across any distance is sufficient to explain this non-traversal of empty space by a non-transverse wave of information.

BTW, the clincher to the non-existence of mass-free photons comes about whenever a high altitude balloonist ascends to 30 miles to witness a black sky void of stars. This is above the diffraction and refraction generated by the upper atmosphere giving us the manifestation of visible light below this altitude.

The flow of water through a pipe is not the best way to make analogy with electrodynamic waves rippling along a wire just as burning firewood does not make for an accurate analogy since no electricity is consumed whenever running a circuit. Only the materials of construction, hosting electrodynamic wave phenomena, are aged with the passage of time since they, too, are never consumed by the electricity and magnetism excited within their atoms.

A better analogy would be people participating in the formation of a wave of love traversing horizontally across a stadium grandstand during halftime of a soccer game, etc. Each person remains in the vicinity of their seat standing up and sitting down at the right moment timed to manifest the appearance of a physical, or energetic, wave when in fact no such physical nor energetic wave moves across the stadium at all.

Rubber insulation covering wires has its limits especially whenever subjected to heat. But any heat (whether from sun, or the amperage within an insulated wire) is an expression of resonance translated into an oxidative and/or mechanical vibration of kinetic motion of the rubber atoms. Heat does not have to travel as energized matter in order to land on a material. As a wave (composed of both energy and information), the manifestation of heat need merely have been shared by the geometry of excitation from neighboring matter without any energy being transferred between them.

Being an integration-oriented student of independent research, I cannot compartmentalize myself into narrow points of view without wanting to seek an explanation of why do my simulations manage to succeed at exciting themselves with very little help from a battery or aerial. So, although this ends up sounding like a post on a physics topic, it gets all of its validity from direct experience from the simulation of analog power supplies.opcorn:

- - - Updated - - -

Correction...
Energy in must equal energy out 'cuz both must equal zero!:!:

Can you please summarize your point? I do not understand what you are trying to convey.

c_mitra said:

Can you please summarize your point? I do not understand what you are trying to convey.

Click to expand...

That we do not collectively know enough about electricity to criticize anyone coming up with anomalous circuits.

That simulators are not useless just because their operating environment is virtual.

These factors combine to create a condition in which it is possible to misdiagnose a legend lacking all of the facts to make a critical analysis.

I'd like to contribute to this faulty situation in whatever way that I can.

I'd like to contribute to this faulty situation in whatever way that I can.

Click to expand...

To do that, you will need to first understand both sides; you also need to be precise in your expressions.

For example, do you understand basic thermodynamics when you state

Rubber insulation covering wires has its limits especially whenever subjected to heat. But any heat (whether from sun, or the amperage within an insulated wire) is an expression of resonance translated into an oxidative and/or mechanical vibration of kinetic motion of the rubber atoms. Heat does not have to travel as energized matter in order to land on a material. As a wave (composed of both energy and information), the manifestation of heat need merely have been shared by the geometry of excitation from neighboring matter without any energy being transferred between them.

Click to expand...

I strongly suggest you devote sometime studying the basic ideas about "entropy"- much of the confusion will go away.

"Lies, damn lies and statistics" predates the invention
of, and so neglects, "simulations".

c_mitra said:

To do that, you will need to first understand both sides;

Click to expand...

To understand both sides is to stand under the authority of both sides. To do that is to contradict myself and, thus, the confusion is born.

This confusion cannot be resolved by giving up my perspective and returning to antiquated views. These views mandate a fixed universe of changing conditions. This, in itself, is another contradiction. It's either fixed and non-changing, or else it's not both at two different scales of size. It can't be fixed on the subatomic level of presuming a fixed speed to photonic mass-free particles (two contradictions, here) and also entertain a non-fixed changing state of macroscopic behavior which we can see, touch, taste, smell and hear.

I, on the other hand, offer an alternative point of view sufficient unto itself which does not deny the existence of energy, yet incorporates the non-energy of empty space by defining space as pure intelligence devoid of matter or energy. This intelligence (we can only surmise) is represented by imaginary constructs, such as the square root of negative one and its associated complex numbers. These constructs fill the gap in our mathematical modeling of physical processes, especially - in this case - electrodynamics.

But mathematical modeling is a simulation. Computers merely improved upon this by taking the drudgery out of it, not by altering this mental exercise. All of this should be common understanding.

I never liked our study of imaginary numbers during high school algebra since I can't touch, taste, or see them. But they won't go away since they are mental inferences for what our senses cannot tell us. Thus, our electric meters - by way of extension of our senses - have the same challenge.

The legacy, which the development of mathematics provides us, serves as the backdrop to this view that the composition of a wave is both substantial energized matter and insubstantial resonance among atoms across empty space. Since energy cannot travel any distance without matter as its host, the mass free photon is an inherent contradiction. Thermodynamics does not require a photon to admit entropy. And entropy is nothing more than the transference of information indicating a ripple of change in excitation between one atom and another neighboring atom in which the first atom is becoming less excited while another is becoming more excited. From this, we define entropy. And from the opposite arrangement, we define negentropy.

Without a photon to transmit information between two atoms, each atom is free to follow its default pattern of behavior, or allow itself to be influenced by other neighboring influences which may alter the time lag between one atom's change in state and the next atom's response giving the appearance of a non-fixed speed of light if the contradictory view of photonic transference of information is adhered to.

Since high altitude balloonists do not see the stars in the sky at an altitude of 30 miles or more, then there is no requirement for me to uphold the conventional view that energy alone exists without resonance across empty space making up the difference to our inadequate view of the situation.

And without a photonic, mass-free (which is an inherent contradiction to energy) material particle carrying information at a fixed rate of speed, the timing between the changing states of neighboring atoms is not fixed as well. Thus, energy density per unit of time is also variable without recourse to outside 'sources' of energy. Thus, a circuit can self-excite to infinite gain, or self-damp to zero, depending on its configuration.

Although (positive) resistance exists everywhere within a circuit, negative resistance exists everywhere as well. The problem is that we don't give negative resistance the credit often enough since the net resistance of 'conventional' circuits avoids surges by suppressing any possibility of their occurrence by causing positive resistance to dominate negative resistance overall while I, on the other hand, encourage surges to develop them as far as I am able for any practical use which a self-excited surge is capable of achieving.

c_mitra said:

you also need to be precise in your expressions.

For example, do you understand basic thermodynamics when you state

Click to expand...

Thermodynamics admits negentropy. And gas discharge bulbs admit, likewise. My simulations have demonstrated that gas discharge tubes are not the only way to manifest negative resistance for negative resistance is already manifest everywhere in all circuits to varying degrees of manifestation. Without distinguishing between net resistance, overall, and specific values which resistance can take at specific locations within a circuit, this confusion between entropy and the conventional view of negentropy clears itself up.

I have two demonstrations to this effect.

Take the following example, for instance ...



I was able to locate the area of potential development of enhanced negative resistance and add a neon bulb at that location to enable an instantaneous gain which maxed out the simulator in 6.48 micro seconds ...

c_mitra said:

I strongly suggest you devote sometime studying the basic ideas about "entropy"- much of the confusion will go away.

Click to expand...

How can conventional knowledge explain an infinite gain when there is no physical inlet, nor outlet, for a physical gain to occur? It is our antiquated knowledge which insists that a physical gain occurs only from physical causes which is only indirectly true. It's much more complicated than any direct gain from a presumed source of energy as the only method for increasing output. There's a lot of information which causes a gain in energy levels, or its diminishment, in between any two physical states of energy. And it is this abstract contribution to a circuit's behavior which will determine whether its overall performance gains, or diminishes, over the duration of its lifespan of activity.

Thus, time - energy density - is another factor to manipulate the dynamics of circuit behavior to impact whether or not the circuit gains or diminishes its energy states without violating the Conservation of Energy law, but by upholding it.

As Emmy Noether, a physicist from a century ago, has stated ...



If thermodynamics merely focuses on losses without admitting any possibility for gains from the manipulation of a circuit's temporal frame of reference, then our awareness of thermodynamics has failed to satisfy Conservation of Energy. This latter trumps the former since loss versus gain is a minor consideration by comparison to time.

I never liked our study of imaginary numbers during high school algebra since I can't touch, taste, or see them

Click to expand...

- Can you touch, taste or see REAL numbers? Numbers are really really abstract concept.

Since high altitude balloonists do not see the stars in the sky at an altitude of 30 miles or more,

Click to expand...

- What prevents them to see the stars?

Anyway, I do not believe I can help you learn what you want to know and hence will stop here.

Vinyasi said:

Thermodynamics admits negentropy. And gas discharge bulbs admit, likewise. My simulations have demonstrated that gas discharge tubes are not the only way to manifest negative resistance for negative resistance is already manifest everywhere in all circuits to varying degrees of manifestation. Without distinguishing between net resistance, overall, and specific values which resistance can take at specific locations within a circuit, this confusion between entropy and the conventional view of negentropy clears itself up.

Click to expand...

Oops. My mistake.
What I meant to say was ...

Without distinguishing between net resistance, overall, and specific values which resistance can take at specific locations within a circuit, this confusion between entropy and the conventional view of negentropy would refuse to clear itself up.

- - - Updated - - -

c_mitra said:

- Can you touch, taste or see REAL numbers? Numbers are really really abstract concept.

Click to expand...

Objection to a point not raised by me fancies straying slightly, but not too extremely, off topic. So, in digression ...

Real numbers model real events that are similar to what they model, namely: positive magnitudes which are factually represented by real-world experiences. Using negative numbers to qualify direction of current confuses our numerous uses of the concept of a negative sign if we equate negative current is analogously similar to a debt owed between people. The former is real - merely inverted in direction versus a positive direction of current. The latter is imaginary since the debt is imaginary until it is paid in full. Then it is a very real loss by the payer and a very real gain by the payee.

By that token, negative numbers are imaginary since a debt is likewise.

But having accustomed myself to negative numbers up to the moment at which imaginary numbers were introduced into our math class, I objected to the latter not realizing that my objection was selectively prejudiced. So, your point is only partly well taken, but a little off the mark since our equipment can register both a positive and a negative value when they meter current, etc. But can they register an imaginary value? Yet, we use complex numbers in our analysis of electrodynamics, because positive and negative sign values fail to model the whole behavior of electricity and magnetism, etc.

It is this area outside of our meters, yet inside of our mathematical modeling, that is most interesting to me since often someone will say that: we can't get something from nothing. Yet, if we can't meter where electrical energy goes to all the time, nor where it comes from all the time, then effectively we'd have to admit that we don't know everything about the whereabouts of electrical energy in the real world despite our ability to model it in a simulator and then claim that there's something wrong with the simulation when it doesn't confirm what our meters or our senses are telling us.

c_mitra said:

- What prevents them to see the stars?

Click to expand...

The lack of the diffractive and reflective property of the upper atmosphere below 30 miles of altitude.

Anyone above 30 miles could look down and see a well lit atmospheric scattering of light lighting up the planet in addition to the reflected light bouncing off of land and sea. By looking at the horizon, from that altitude, a layer of suffused lighting is visible enveloping the planet for 30 miles of depth.

Without the benefit of an atmosphere to surround our eyes, all we could see walking around here would be the surface of objects brightly lit in extreme contrast to the sky which would be inky black without any stars nor any sun at all visible. It's impossible to see a light beam due to light beams not existing as a transverse phenomenon.

All beams of light are assumed to be transverse waves. Yet, only reflected or diffracted light is transverse and, thus, is the only light which we can see or record (measure). What travels across empty space is longitudinal and, thus, cannot be measured nor seen. Our eyeball is not designed to register a longitudinal wave so we would be blinded by our invisible sun at 30 miles altitude.

Blindness is the burning of our retina by way of converting the longitudinal wavelengths of light into transverse waves of over-excitation which our eye cannot sustain without suffering damage.

We can see the effect which light conveys in its passage through a semi-permeable medium such as our atmosphere or the ocean, etc. But we cannot see the source of light, nor the light, itself.

c_mitra said:

Anyway, I do not believe I can help you learn what you want to know and hence will stop here.

Click to expand...

OK. Thanks for contributing to this discussion.:clap:

Sorry to see you go...

but a little off the mark since our equipment can register both a positive and a negative value when they meter current, etc. But can they register an imaginary value?

Click to expand...

As said above, you should study some subjects more deeply before raising philosophical questions about everything. Concerning to the 'legitimacy' of some matters such as complex numbers, they are not indeed used to account anything, but are quite usefull as algebraic operators, which allow perform mathematical calculations that would be extremely complex if made only with 'real' numbers.

Anyway, in order to avoid an endess debate not focused in some specific subject, please follow the topic suggested in the title,

Tesla's Pierce Arrow Electric Car Experiment of 1931

Click to expand...

or open another thread if you want switch to another subject.

andre_teprom said:

As said above, you should study some subjects more deeply before raising philosophical questions about everything.

Click to expand...

Since all scientific philosophy is predicated on observation of data, I have no justifiably good reason to leave this message thread alone to go start a new one separate and distinct from this one as if abstract thought could exist apart from data and still be scientifically valid. Since when is this so?

These simulations are sufficient to form an opinion upon plus recourse to our common sense and conventional knowledge. But that doesn't mean we have to agree on any of this despite our persistent definition of science as something in which all observers can achieve the same observation which should leave no room for disagreements to arise.

So, why do we disagree?

I believe it is due to several factors...

• We don't have the same experience. I did not get my training from conventional authority figures. I sought them out from the cream of the crop. That alone could start a line of disagreeable discussions.
• I got my training from personal experience from years of meditation and then translated one of the precepts of that training, namely the phenomenon known as Sat-Chit-Ananda, over to my study of this electrodynamic experimentation.
• This resulted in a more holistic view of electrodynamics as a mere subtext to, or just one example of, wave mechanics in general. **broken link removed** of crystallography is a crucial part of this understanding.
• Yet, phase conjugation is not taught to electrical engineers who are entitled to know this aspect of wave mechanics in order to more fully understand transmission of discontinuous waves within a power supply.[example]
• Without this supplementary knowledge, our thinking on power supplies is restricted to non-relevant opinions carried over from nuclear physics, namely: energy OUT must equal energy entered IN-to the warhead of an ICBM, which only pertains to thermonuclear matter IN must equal thermonuclear fission or fusion OUT.
• This is a misapplication of physics not germane to electrodynamics due to the lack of inertial forces acting upon electrons as if they possessed the same gravitational forces acting upon them as do far heavier neutrons and protons.
• Only mass IN must equal energy OUT. Placing energy on both sides of an equivalence statement is akin to defining a word just by the use of the same word which is hardly a definition. More likely, this skirts our responsibility to define something in terms of something else.
• Electrodynamics is not an act of combustion, nor is it an act of fission or fusion, or else it would be consumable. Hence, electrodynamics is not consumable - it does not consume anything. It is merely a wave embodied by the materials of construction within a circuit.
• Since no copper is ever consumed in the course of the operation of a circuit, nor is its iron or rubber insulation, etc, the circuit cannot expire.
• A battery is good example of a power supply which is not acting as a power supply. In this linked example, it is acting as a voltage regulator capping its parallel contribution to a circuit at the battery's rated voltage. This battery does not have to contribute any amperage, in the form of amp-hours, to power a circuit connected to this battery in series with the remainder of this circuit. It could, instead, be charged by this circuit (namely, topped off with a very weak charging current). This will insure the survival of this battery's charge for a very long time while insuring that this circuit can also be powered for a very long time on this battery's voltage, alone. I am referring, here, to the first post of this message thread.

Observing circuit simulations over the past several months has trained me to think in a particular way regardless of any criticisms to the contrary. I can't ignore this data just because they're simulations, or else what's a simulation good for if not to model reality in an idealistic manner?

andre_teprom said:

Concerning to the 'legitimacy' of some matters such as complex numbers, they are not indeed used to account anything,

Click to expand...

Good that we agree on something.

andre_teprom said:

but are quite usefull as algebraic operators, which allow perform mathematical calculations that would be extremely complex if made only with 'real' numbers.

Anyway, in order to avoid an endess debate

Click to expand...

Endless debates are as impossible as are perpetual motion machines. Sooner or later, we'll both run out of anything new and unique to say at which point peaceful coexistent silence reigns.

It's good to disagree to whatever lengths desired so that the full depth of mutual understandings are plumbed and spread-eagled for everyone else to see. This is not a private discussion or else we'd be private messaging. Hence, all the more reason to discuss to exhaustion of thought so that everyone else can fully appreciate our difference of opinions.

andre_teprom said:

not focused in some specific subject, please follow the topic suggested in the title, or open another thread if you want switch to another subject.

Click to expand...

Since you don't want me to continue discussing the consequences of my simulations, aka my conclusive opinions, then I will reserve my opinions and the remainder of this discussion for my other forum on YouTube unless anyone responds to this post. Then, I will consider this thread to be alive and well. Otherwise, you're right: it's dead.:thumbsup:

- - - Updated - - -

Correction/addition

vinyasi said:

• i got my training from personal experience from years of meditation and then translated one of the precepts of that training, namely the phenomenon known as sat-chit-ananda, over to my study of this electrodynamic experimentation.

vinyasi said:

a better analogy would be people participating in the formation of a wave of love traversing horizontally across a stadium grandstand during halftime of a soccer game, etc. Each person remains in the vicinity of their seat standing up and sitting down at the right moment timed to manifest the appearance of a physical, or energetic, wave when in fact no such physical nor energetic wave moves across the stadium at all.

Click to expand...

andre_teprom said:

concerning to the 'legitimacy' of some matters such as complex numbers, they are not indeed used to account anything,

Click to expand...

good that we agree on something.
'cuz how can we account for something which does not exist in space, but exists in counter-space wherein matter and energy do not exist? Herein, you are right: Complex numbers are useful operators which simplify our mathematical modeling of the complicated phenomena of electrodynamics.

Click to expand...

Type "H. Tomasz Grzybowski" in Google, click on "H. Tomasz Grzybowski on Research Gate" and read my very short article "Violation of the Law of Energy Conservation".

Vinyasi < I see a very creative use of Falstad's simulators with some flaws in the values for the simulation that are not realizable. The use of kiloHenry and micro-ohm values notwithstanding can make unrealistic results. Actual negative ESR and positive ESR for gas tubes or air are hypothetical not real.

SunnySkyguy said:

Vinyasi < I see a very creative use of Falstad's simulators with some flaws in the values for the simulation that are not realizable. The use of kiloHenry and micro-ohm values notwithstanding can make unrealistic results. Actual negative ESR and positive ESR for gas tubes or air are hypothetical not real.

Click to expand...

Who's fault is that? It's not your fault, nor is it mine. If we don't make demands upon manufacturers and developers of the components which we use, then is it their fault that they don't supply us with whatever it takes to become more creative - not less creative?

This is a pandemic issue not realizable, aka resolvable, by any one individual. Only a shift in collective awareness could help facilitate an improvement in variety of components at affordable prices.

But we are already seeing the use of the home computer for robotic engineering of custom parts. So, there is hope for our future.

Many of my earlier simulations were predicated on nano-Henries and capacitors that were less than 10 pico Farads - such as 1pF. Although it is possible to find inductors online in the nano-Henry range, as you know: capacitor kits come in various assorted sizes all beginning at 10 pico Farads and upwards - never less.

Any conspiracy theorist would have a field day with that one!

To top it off, my simulations would require a high tolerance for extreme voltages.

My simulations are not a popularity contest. They are an exercise in critical judgement against "rules on how to solve a problem". I don't subscribe to rules. Laws of Nature are sufficient.

Simulators all have their pitfalls which every one of us who has worked with them knows that to be an additional set of limitations to accommodate ourselves to.

I do not mean to tease you with a design that you cannot build this moment.

I use simulators, not as blueprints, but as a tool to learn what results from what causation. Ohms Law doesn't tell me what would happen whenever I put a very low level resistor inline with a very high capacitor. I have to find that out on my own. That's what I see in a simulator's useful purpose.

No doubt, your criticism is well founded on the bench technician. For the most part, I am a theorist - not a builder.

Sometimes, problems are more complicated than the subject at hand. This is a sociological limitation masquerading as not being realizable. Don't take it personal. I don't.

Who's fault is that? It's not your fault, nor is it mine. ...

Click to expand...

It is your fault.

Simulations are numerical tools; they are subject to round off errors. For best results, the numbers should be in the neighbourhood of unity. If they are not, you need to scale them.

Finally, you need to understand that most of the simulations are iterative tools; they use successive approximations to get the results (Newton Raphson method is one of them) and you need a error limit (convergence condition).

If you are a theorist, you should scale the inputs and adjust the results accordingly. MegaHenries and picoFarads are not incompatible but they are not the regular fodder for normal simulators. I guess you get my point.

Most simulators (I know only a few) use double precision and the convergence tolerance can be user adjusted- but anyway I know so little.

by the way, 1-2 cm of stray wire has capacitance of about 1 pF (some guess value). A sphere about the size of earth has a capacitance of about a Farad.

It's possible I may have been premature in my assessment of this rumored story...

Firstly, Savo's non-credible relationship with Tesla does not reduce the likelihood of his story. It only assassinates Savo's character. Savo was a groupie and an informant always attempting to leak out as much information of Tesla's latest accomplishments so that others could profit. Tesla's tight lipped condition at the end of the narrative supports this: that Savo was asking too many questions. Savo was never considered by Tesla to be his nephew. That's Savo's claim to Tesla's privacy. But for some reason, Tesla tolerated him. Why, we'll never know. I guess Tesla was not into hiring bouncers?...

The twelve radio tubes were actually capacitors invented by Tesla for which he had filed a patent for in 1896...
https://is.gd/teslacap

There's no mention of him receiving any patent. But I would venture a guess that since he no longer could hire specialists to make whatever component he wanted by the 1930s, the Pierce-Arrow demonstration was conducted in Buffalo presumably since that was where he could easily buy his invention custom made by a friendly supplier. How he used these special capacitors is anybody's guess. Mine is that Eric's discovery that Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter can be Thevenin-ed by the use of caps and coils in some variation or another (see, pg. 110 of this pdf) of Eric Dollard's analog computer of a transmission line is a strong candidate.

He also could no longer afford the rumored theory that the use of the presumed radio tubes to 'tune into' his transmission of wireless power from some unknown source is so bogus. JP Morgan destroyed more than Tesla's career when he discovered that Tesla did not tell JP the whole truth concerning his use of Wardenclyffe for wireless transmission of power to everyone on this planet for free in addition to what he did tell JP: that it was for wireless communications capable of privacy and secure connections. Whatever method used to produce power for the AC motor installed in the Pierce-Arrow would have to have been a power supply independent of outside sources.

Here is a list of some of my variations...

https://is.gd/pierce_arrow
https://is.gd/rapidpa

Using a modified Magnetic Amplifier...

https://is.gd/mag_amp

...produces the error message: "nan/Infinite Matrix!" If the error winks out before you get a chance to read it in the lower left corner of the simulator's canvas, then click the 'Reset' button once in the upper right corner.

Instead of a single power supply, why not one for each coil on a four phase induction motor?...

https://is.gd/acmotor

Modifying this Mag Amp theme a little bit further, by winding the load coil with two counter-wound coils of half a Henry each, and by adding one more capacitor (a variable type) to regulate the impedance on the load coil and also regulate the artificially crafted AC frequency (much like a Bubba DC to AC inverter flattens the peaks and the troughs of each sine wave produced) during cruising on stored electrical momentum, this is more likely to add up to exactly twelve vacuum tube capacitors...

https://is.gd/novoltage

...and retain a total of one Henry of inductance on all four pairs of counter-wound coils since each pair will possess merely one-quarter Henry of inductance due to its counter-wound condition and mitigate the voltage without affecting the current (please correct me if I'm wrong).

Vinyasi said:

Who's fault is that? It's not your fault, nor is it mine. If we don't make demands upon manufacturers and developers of the components which we use, then is it their fault that they don't supply us with whatever it takes to become more creative - not less creative?


No doubt, your criticism is well founded on the bench technician. For the most part, I am a theorist - not a builder.

.

Click to expand...

When I said " unrealistic results" from components that are not realizable, it means it breaks the laws of physics at room temperature or your budget to get below superconducting temperatures.

In order to have so many turns of copper in a high permeability core the L/R ratio is limited well below your simulator values of kiloHenry/micro-ohm. This often expressed as a Q factor or a Quality factor and 100 is considered high while 1000 would be extremely high and 1e3/1e-6 = 1e9 is impossible unless you have super-conductors with liquid nitrogen for the entire power transformer, which has yet to be done and would required massive nitrogen tanks. or coaxial pipes filled with nitrogen for winding.

SunnySkyguy said:

When I said " unrealistic results" from components that are not realizable, it means it breaks the laws of physics at room temperature or your budget to get below superconducting temperatures.

In order to have so many turns of copper in a high permeability core the L/R ratio is limited well below your simulator values of kiloHenry/micro-ohm. This often expressed as a Q factor or a Quality factor and 100 is considered high while 1000 would be extremely high and 1e3/1e-6 = 1e9 is impossible unless you have super-conductors with liquid nitrogen for the entire power transformer, which has yet to be done and would required massive nitrogen tanks. or coaxial pipes filled with nitrogen for winding.

Click to expand...

In my pursuit of attempting to be buildable and realizable, and not having enough hands-on experience to satisfy you up front without dialogue occurring first, that was the best I did. I arbitrarily chose values I thought were reasonable. So, if micro Henrys is not realistic, then what is? Nano? Milli? I haven't a clue....

Furthermore, I can't find the kilo ohm example you mentioned. Where is it located so that I might see what other extreme value it may be counterpoised against in that circuit?.....:?:

Another over unity project, described in a verbose and convoluted way.

Accelerating Current by Increasing Distance Across a Capacitor's Dielectric

schmitt trigger said:

Another over unity project, described in a verbose and convoluted way.

Click to expand...

Here is Sir Eric Dollard's recipe for composing electricity from its constituent ingredients of magnetism and electrostatics over time. By immersing a magnetic field, from a permanent magnet or an electromagnet, in an electrostatic field and by varying this electrostatic field over time, new electricity can be synthesized that wasn't there beforehand. This is what 'free energy' is all about. Conversely it is possible to do the opposite: decompose preexisting electricity by returning it to its simpler components of magnetism and electrostatics. This latter condition transcends mere thermodynamic losses and conversions and is an addition to it.







But for anyone who wants the complicated stuff, see pg. 9 and continuing of...
http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Eric_Dollard_Document_Collection/Eric Dollard - Posts on EnergeticForum.pdf

"...the smaller the space (the more counterspace) the more Dielectricity that can be stored..." - from pg. 14, ¶ 4.

Click to expand...

Hence, the increase of space across the dielectric of a capacitor is also the decrease of counterspace and the acceleration of a longitudinal wave passing through it.

At the end of the day, the devices shown in the pictures are lossy oscillators that come to a stop after finite time.