Teslas electric car

[truesearch]

Vinyasi,


Would my attached diagram of the "Amman" copper spheres be anywhere close to correct?

[Vinyasi]

Vinyasi,

Would my attached diagram of the "Amman" copper spheres be anywhere close to correct?

Good work!
Now, I realize my mistake.
The photograph would suggest a single connection, not a dual connection, to the remainder of the circuit.
The simulator requires two connections. I'm at a loss for this discrepancy, unless I speculate further...

To conform with C. Earl Ammann's description...

His power station was not electrically connected to any of its loads but broadcast its power to their loads received by a copper coil acting as a receiving antenna if this coil was adjacent to iron rods within 10? miles of his power station. (My guess is that he was using the existing power lines in our buildings and stretching across the landscape as conduit for his broadcast.) This may resolve the discrepancy if we assume that each copper rod, which extends below each sphere, is attached to the bottom of the sphere but not attached to anything else. It merely extends into the interior space of the barrel shaped coil (in the picture) creating a weak magnetic coupling between each copper rod and the barrel shaped winding. This winding appears to be made of iron wire (in the photograph) and is a weave winding of a single layer similar to Tesla's original extra coil on his original Tesla coil, not similar to modern day Tesla coils, but closer to Eric Dollard's design and others like himself.

Maybe this iron barrel shaped coil avoided the necessity of being in close proximity to iron rods since it is not wound with copper wire? So, maybe it satisfies both criteria of a copper winding in close proximity to iron magnetizable material all at once?

[truesearch]

Regarding:

The photograph would suggest a single connection

IDK. . . looking at that photo right at the very top of the spheres there is SOMETHING (shield/cover) across the top that might have hidden a wire connection . . .  Right under where you have the RED-ARROWS drawn.

I guess there is no way of knowing 

[Vinyasi]

Regarding:

IDK. . . looking at that photo right at the very top of the spheres there is SOMETHING (shield/cover) across the top that might have hidden a wire connection . . .  Right under where you have the RED-ARROWS drawn.

I guess there is no way of knowing 

Correct. There is no way of knowing.
The story stipulates that the headlights of their EV were taken out and replaced by the copper spheres. So, maybe that lip was originally there intended to act as a small awning for the headlights?

Resimulating on the basis of: in Micro-Cap 12 on a 64-bit Windows 10, a single copper rod connecting both spheres and bent in the middle hidden from our view on the inside of the barrel shaped coil, and assuming inductances for everything, the outcome is less of a purely hyperbolic shaped, infinite gain. Rather, it increases in incremental steps to various levels of plateau before incrementing to the next plateau giving a nice triangular wave-form which I expect of overunity circuits since I've extensively seen this occur indicating the non-saturation of both voltage and of current. In other words, it has no upper limit of growth and is constructed of the simultaneous occurrence of a leading and a lagging current of a maximum of +/- 90 degrees for each ingredient. This makes it a generator, by passive sign convention, since these two ingredients possess a separation between them of one-half cycle of oscillation (180 degrees). But not any old generator. No. Specifically, a generator of reactive power since each contributing ingredient is exclusively +90 degrees or -90 degrees making its output exclusively reactive power of zero real watts with a spread between each type of reactance of 180 degrees. But since a simple resistor can convert any reactive power factor into a unity real power factor, then there is no excuse for not availing ourselves of abundant reactive power to satisfy the colloquialism of "free energy". An example, I like to use, is that of a boiler utilizing a resistive heating element to convert water into steam and drive a turbine to rotate a rotary electric generator which would justify the elimination of all nuclear reactors if, per chance, we should also want to do away with the production of all nuclear warheads.

Over at StackExchange, I've only managed to get someone to admit to the equivalency of nomenclature between "reactive power" and "free energy" on only two occasions. But on each occasion, the person kept adding the same caveat of: "But what's it good for? It's useless (i.e., reactive) power."

Yet, it is a fact that a significant part of the job description of an electrical engineer, especially those burdened with managing the utility grid, have to know how to convert from reactive to real or the other way around in order to "balance the grid" and prevent explosions or brownouts or blackouts.

I'm also assuming an inductance for the load of 10 Henrys which would be closer to the standards of today. Their EV of 1921 was probably much smaller since I am also assuming that their conversion of a standard, battery powered EV into a battery-free version was more closer to golf carts of today? Maybe Tesla's electric car of 1931 was closer to the power delivery of a Pierce-Arrow and to Tesla Motor's of today?

Link to simulation file...

https://ufile.io/ca9xwefy

[Vinyasi]

Another correction...
Since the copper tubing is singular and bent in the middle with a 180 degree bend (hidden from view tucked away inside of the barrel shaped coil), I modified the simulation to reflect this. Furthermore, don't ever take simulations at their face value. I like to use them to indicate a vague sense of what is possible. Only an actual build will determine the actual outcome. Yet, a simulation which blows up (in these simulations) indicates an inherent possibility of risk if they should work at all.

Experimenter beware!

Download link for the Micro-Cap simulation file...

https://ufile.io/c9eeq0yv

Postscript...

The Berkeley SPICE family of simulators, from which Spectrum-Soft's Micro-Cap was born, do not possess the ability to program the simulation to reflect an iron wrapping (such as: permalloy used in the early days of trans-Atlantic telegraph cable design) surrounding the copper core of magnetic wire. And since I suspect that Paul Falstad's simulator, used here, appears to incorporate this concept of wrapping copper magnetic wire with a layer of iron (when used within transformers) prior to the application of the wire's insulation, I can deduce that overunity circuits, by design, are very unstable in the Berkeley SPICE family of simulators compared to the more stable outcomes depicted in Paul Falstad's simulator. Considering that the "conventional wisdom" of modern-day electrical engineering and of physics has proclaimed that these types of overunity circuits are always unstable, I must conclude that this is due to our ignorance on this subject. This is not due to any inherent flaw within circuits which surge to infinite gain. I think they (our so-called authority figures) are trying to scare us into staying away from Heaviside's perspective shared by Stubblefield and possibly shared by the Ammann brothers, as well.

Does this sound like a conspiracy to you? It does, to me!