Tesla's Pierce-Arrow EV Demonstration of 1931

Here is my inspired simulation of a rumored story concerning a purported EV demonstration given by

Nikola Tesla in 1931. Everyone says it was done with twelve radio vacuum tubes and some resistors
and wire which he assembled in his hotel room upon his arrival in Buffalo, New York. I say it was a
Tesla invention of vacuum variable capacitors which, for some reason or another, the Patent Office did
not issue Tesla a patent when he filed for one in 1896 and it didn't become commercially available until
1942 (a year before he died) without Tesla ever receiving any monetary gain from it ...
http://is.gd/teslacap

Using the LMD analog computer of a transmission line from page 110 of Eric Dollard's presentation...
http://is.gd/refinedlmd

...as a Thevenin equivalence...

http://is.gd/thevenin

... to Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter...

https://is.gd/uwahav

...stationed at Wardenclyffe and to improve performance of my initial attempt...

http://is.gd/pierce_arrow

...which had used another version of Eric's LMD module given by way of his 1988 Borderlands video...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BnCUBKgnnc

...a transformer is centered in the circuit to hypothetically emulate a pair of motor coils...
http://is.gd/rapidpa
http://is.gd/pierce_arrow_cmf

...which could be the auxiliary and main pairs of coils in a single phase AC motor (the AC motor being
another part of this rumored story) in which each pair of coils are connected in parallel making for
essentially a two coiled motor spread out over four coils....

Main versus auxiliary windings on a single phase AC motor design...

http://is.gd/singlephaseac
http://www.learnengineering.org/2013/08/single-phase-induction-motor.html

This circuit accelerates upwards without limit if its pair of snubbers at the top and bottom of the circuit
are not engaged from time to time to allow cruise mode in which normal losses due to conversion into
mechanical drive and other lack of efficiency losses will dominate its behavior. This simulation uses a
momentary snap switch connection to an outside power source (which in this case is an aerial
supplying a considerable amount of voltage (~20V) by comparison to what is more reasonably
expected: 5-10mV; or, 5uV in the case of a mere piece of wire often used a century ago for crystal
radio sets).

But this simulation does not purport to receive any radio signals, or power, as the popularly rumored
story claims from any transmitting station which those stories claim Tesla was doing. This can't be true
since JP Morgan pulled the plug on Wardenclyffe and no other backer of considerable wealth came
forward to fund any other attempt of Tesla to implement his wireless transmission of power through the
Earth (not through the air!) for worldwide free use...
http://is.gd/rxkeFI
~or~
http://is.gd/teslaEV

According to Eric during another presentation to the San Francisco Tesla Society...
http://is.gd/teslaimpulse

...impulse current...
http://is.gd/impulsedef

...is that property of capacitance in which the energy absorbed by a capacitor is not the same energy
which is discharged by that capacitor. Absorption is a trigger for whatever comes out be it greater or
lesser than what goes in.

The reason why a mere simulator can replicate this is due to the property of that other space which the
capacitor negotiates energy transfer between that other space and space. Eric calls that other space:
counter-space whose numerical feature is the domain of the complex number field. Counter-space is
probably what populist culture calls: Energy from the Vacuum, or more traditionally: the Aether.

We know that whenever we take the square root of a number, we are told to assess the situation to
determine which of those two possible answers is correct and ignore the other answer. And if the square
root process produces two waves of two different values but of the same waveform, then we'd assume
that only one of those two waves would be the right answer.

But what if, in the course of square rooting to plot another point on an oscilloscope tracing over the
passage of time governing the dynamic state of an ongoing circuit simulation undergoing analysis, the
parent waveform gives birth to two individually unique waveforms? Wouldn't we have to not ignore
both possible answers?

This is the multiplication of waves and the energy which they embody up to a limit of tolerance for
whatever the materials of construction of a circuit may endure before meltdown occurs. The valence
electrons binding adjacent copper atoms together in a copper wire, for instance, is this limit of
endurance which, if crossed by any surge of energy sustained by a circuit over time, will result in the
energy of the circuit predominating over the ability for the circuit's wires to maintain their shape as a
wire before blasting into a cloud of nano-dust. This is an experiment which Tesla performed on various
components to see how far he could go before various parts of a circuit destroyed themselves since he
was planning on using high voltages and high frequencies.

At least in the safe environment of a simulation, I need not worry about that.

All I need worry is the manageability of surges and their practicality (given that most of them are
subject to randomization of spikes of short duration rather than being nice sleek AC sine waves or flat
lining DC oscilloscope tracings). That's the tough part.