I found the source of Tesla electric car information
Dallas Morning News, January 24th, 1931
The Electric Auto that almost triumphed: Power Source of '31 car still a mystery
by A.C. Greene, "Texas Sketches column"
can somebody check it in Dallas Morning News archive ?
I was expecting an Elon Musk article.
Found this so far-->will keep serching.
The electric auto almost triumphed
Power source of '31 car still a mystery
Author: A.C. Greene
Publish Date: January 24, 1993
Word Count: 371
Document ID: 0ED3D3632518BDC9
Not long ago, Texas Sketches told the story of Henry "Dad' Garrett and his son C.H.'s water-fueled automobile, which was successfully demonstrated in 1935 at White Rock Lake in Dallas.
Eugene Langkop of Dallas (a Packard lover, like so many of us) notes that the "wonder car' of the future may be a resurrection of the electric car. It uses no gasoline, no oil -- just some grease fittings -- has no radiator to fill or freeze, no carburetor problems, no muffler to replace and gives off
Here is the whole shabang. looks like the water carburetor setup we have heard all about.
Enjoy.
http://www.keelynet.com/energy/garrett.htm
http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=DM&p_theme=dm&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&s_hidethis=no&p_field_label-0=Author&p_text_label-0=A.C.Greene&p_field_label-1=title&p_bool_label-1=AND&p_field_label-2=Section&p_bool_label-2=AND&s_dispstring=Tesla%20AND%20byline(A.C.Greene)%20AND%20date(all)&p_field_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced-0=(%22Tesla%22)&xcal_numdocs=40&p_perpage=20&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no
Aha... :( I expected this, though I had little hope there is original source-article in 1931. Is there any article about Tesla at January 24th 1931 ?
Quote
We here at Vanguard Sciences/KeelyNet and our Associates believe in and practice the free and open release of information relating to energy production, health and gravity control technologies.
Such information should not be monopolized, suppressed or otherwise restricted from benefitting the public at large.
If you choose to experiment with this device, we urge you to be extremely careful and would greatly appreciate your findings or comments. We will also report on what we find, perhaps with many minds and approaches, this can yet be a viable project.
Hybridizing of many techniques to achieve an end result is THE WAY!
Imagine, one simple process that can provide:
1) heat - through the burning of hydrogen/oxygen
2) power for local energy generation - the explosive energy to drive a piston to drive a shaft to drive a generator. That generator charges a battery network which feeds an inverter (converts DC to AC) to run your house
3) motive power for transport power - explosive energy drives the piston to drive your vehicle
4) light - condoluminescence - hydrogen/oxygen exposed to phosphor coated surfaces for light generation
5) sound amplification - flame speakers where flame is electrostatically deflected at audio rates to produce sound, the hydrogen/oxygen mix is generated LOCALLY rather than using bottled gases such as propane, butane, etc.
Are we so collectively stupid that we can't duplicate today what was done almost 60 years ago and improve on it? Please pass this around freely and reprint it if you want.
Quote from: forest on 2015.04.08, 07:59:23
Aha... :( I expected this, though I had little hope there is original source-article in 1931. Is there any article about Tesla at January 24th 1931 ?
Im guessing your talking about Tesla's self powered car,and i believe there was a boat aswell before hand.
Seems this artical has nothing to do with tesla's electric car,but with HHO production done with a carby that has a HHO cell in it.
Forest
Quote
I found the source of Tesla electric car information
Dallas Morning News, January 24th, 1931
The Electric Auto that almost triumphed: Power Source of '31 car still a mystery
by A.C. Greene, "Texas Sketches column"
can somebody check it in Dallas Morning News archive ?
end quote
Forest I will call the library there when they open [about 5 AM in Dallas now]
will let you know
Chet K
Bumping this topic, in a somewhat tongue in cheek way 8)
BREAKING NEWS -
During the 1930's there had been talk of a fully electric car, which could power itself. Reports of the vehicle having been seen driven around the northern New York area. That story has taken a surprising twist tonight, WPAG can reveal.
With the recent purchase of farm buildings north of Buffalo, there was one discovery that the new owners, Dorothy and Tom Denkins could not have expected.
Within the forlorn and rotting carcass of a hay barn, sat a vintage car. Complete and appearing to need little more than cosmetic cleaning, the car was pulled from the barn with the aid of a rented tractor. Seized wheel bearings aside, the vehicle is in surprisingly good condition, no doubt protected from the elements by the barn structure.
This, however, is no mere barn find and restoration discovery. The 1931 Pierce-Arrow vehicle sports a 6ft antenna on the rear, an electric motor under the hood and also a curious box inside the passenger cabin. That box has 2 rods poking up from its casing. What it is for is unknown at the present time.
The story goes, that the car was driven in the 1930's by Serbian inventor Nikola Tesla, around the local area and at speeds of up to 90mph. It did so without any fuel and without needing to be charged up. In fact, says new owner Tom Denkins "there was no large battery bank or anywhere to put one and it certainly has no gas tank".
WPAG will monitor this breaking story and update readers on the exciting prospect of the Pierce-Arrow motor car returning to the roads. We were able to snap a couple of pictures tonight, in the local Wireless Town, where the car is being shown to the press.
Seriously Tesla was not first with free energy electric car ! C.Amman and Harry Perrigo also had electric cars.... and way ealier....
Here's the beginning of Rex Research's article on Perrigo:
QuotePerrigo's invention eventually was exposed as an apparent fraud, at least in part, but there is still some valid question whether it might have actually worked as claimed. The storage batteries that were found hidden in the demonstration car might have served a legitimate purpose (i.e., a buffer system, as in many other devices), but apparently didn't. It is certain, however, that Perrigo had something unique; his device lit bulbs with a clearer light than normal electricity (Like E.V. Gray & Moray), and the power could be transmitted over fine wires without meltdown. While the automobile demonstration was dubious, he also demonstrated a handheld unit that obviously worked as claimed. Perrigo also demonstrated the device before a federal judge and patent commissioners in the House of Representatives in 1917. Would he have dared to fake such a presentation? Only an attempt to replicate the device based on his patent application will resolve the question. Here are all the newpaper factoids I have been able to accumulate (Thanks especially to the Kansas City Public Library "Vertical Files").
And this is from a "believer's" website to boot!
(And I won't even mention my own devices that "light bulbs with a clearer light than normal electricity" or work to do it even _wirelessly_ .)
Yeah...I know how hard is to believe, but (for peace of your mind ), he was not just uneducated dumb man (like myself) - who can accuse your professional knowledge with statement of something which you cannot replicate ... he was educated electrical engeneer working for year with power plant generators.
@TK
QuoteAnd this is from a "believer's" website to boot!
(And I won't even mention my own devices that "light bulbs with a clearer light than normal electricity" or work to do it even _wirelessly_ .)
I believe you hit the nail on the head TK, you see 99% of normal people might assume you are a fraud when you claim you have "light bulbs with a clearer light than normal electricity" or work to do it even _wirelessly" however this is completely dependent on whether you disclose the facts of how you did it or not. That is if you make no disclosure then obviously you are a fraud and if you do then obviously you were correct... funny how that works considering the facts of the technology have not actually changed have they?.
At which point we come full circle in regards to the delusional notion that it cannot be real unless I personally have irrefutable proof. Oh yes, nothing in this universe can ever be considered as real, valid or otherwise unless it has been proven beyond all shadow of doubt to me personally and I must reject it in every case if I cannot personally agree with it. At which point we might understand technology has made huge advances however the way most people think is still in the dark ages.
No TK I cannot look at your devices for if I did I would be as delusional as you and burned at the stake as a witch... the universe does not revolve around you my friend but me, lol.
In any case I don't take myself too seriously and I don't expect others do either and I'm perfectly fine with this. We have our own opinions of the way things are right or wrong. It's just that the more I study psychology and study people the more I have come to realize most people are actors. Many portray themselves as something they are not and demand justification from others but find offence that they might be questioned. To be honest I'm not really sure how society got to this strange place because it's FUBAR TK. From a psychological standpoint most normal people have lost their god damn minds... there is no subtle way to put it and nothing normal about it.
AC
I don't think that people have lost their minds...more that inquisitiveness has been lost to convenience.
That some have allowed their minds to be shaped for them, to a certain way of thinking, because it makes life easier to get on with. Constantly reinventing the wheel holds no purpose, therefore (goes the argument) just make everything the way that works. It's commonly accepted, therefore correct.
You could probably count on 1 finger the amount of friends you know who have read Perrigo's stuff and, likely be shown the middle one, if daring to explore that work by a different way of thinking and ask for their help.
An interesting line above was "the power could be transmitted over fine wires without meltdown". There ya go...HV produced by a possible variation of Tesla coil or other well coupled wireless energy transformer. It's easily possible to light fluoro tubes of 40W rating over 30 AWG wire at 25ft distance. And, what's more, strange sparkly pin head sized lights dance within the tube.
That much is without doubt correct. If a fella gets to that point in his demonstrations and experiments, then we have to look closer at obfuscations, rationale by peers and derision from contemporaries.
I wanted to pass this thought along, as discussed yesterday on the phone with a friend. That was who I originally took those pics above for and then thought of this thread.
He said "think of a crystal radio, how being near to an AM station can light an LED easy enough, how that energy can be transformed to run more than an earphone, at a substantial distance compared to regular induction. Now, why does noone think about the actual motor that Tesla used in the car ?".
What if the motor worked in multiple ways, such as collecting the flyback from each pulse generated by the black box circuit. How the coils themselves may have resonated at the broadcast frequency. 6ft aerial on the back, ground strip hanging off the rear like so many present day cars have and a tuning coil in the form of the motor windings. The control circuit is in the black box.
Here's something else discussed - how about when he said "and now we have power", that his own body capacitance and resistance interacted to destabilise the circuit and fire it up. The contacts were made, conventionally enough by the rods, but the circuit only fired up because he was holding them. After all, in a modern Slayer Exciter, a 20K resistor or so is only needed to fire the circuit up, it can then be disconnected.
@AC:
QuoteNo TK I cannot look at your devices for if I did I would be as delusional as you and burned at the stake as a witch... the universe does not revolve around you my friend but me, lol.
LOL indeed... ;)
Don't look:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhBgAAJUPsw
8)
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2015.04.26, 14:09:05
Here's the beginning of Rex Research's article on Perrigo:
And this is from a "believer's" website to boot!
(And I won't even mention my own devices that "light bulbs with a clearer light than normal electricity" or work to do it even _wirelessly_ .)
Hmmmm loop antennas, one of my investigations into the high current within the loop/ capacitor and at high voltage with as little as 2.5watts input.
TK have you had your cap heating up? at 145Mhz I have had my soldering melt at the cap connections with 2.5w, I had to silver solder in the end. The cap was made up of two pieces of copper strip and a teflon tape in between as the dielectric, needless to say the loop was very small "28mm dia" 1". The voltage was around 90v as I remember (some years ago when I was investigating this), the current was I think around 8amps, now what do we call this? reactive power, real power or "A" another? the radiating power was 2.5watts @ a perfect SWR 1.1:1.
Now your clearer light than normal electric could be that there is also a HV riding a few degrees off phase from the normal induction (this HV is RF radiated) just musing here :)
Nice video
regards
Mike 8)
Yes, the capacitors in the loop-tank circuit do heat up. I've not been working at such high frequencies as you, my systems work at below 1 MHz, and also I've not used home-made capacitors, I use high-quality poly film caps for these systems. Haven't melted any solder or had cap failures, but sometimes the caps do get scary hot.
The power in the tank circuit in my systems is reactive power with current and voltage 90 degrees out-of-phase, but the current clearly has real effects because it creates the electromagnetic induction which transfers high power levels to the receiver. The voltage and current in the loop are many times higher than the supplied DC input V and I because of the resonant condition.
Two things about the light from the bulbs: they do get much brighter without blowing than they can get on DC, and the glass darkens and eventually becomes black from being coated by the metal boiling off the filaments (I think). This blackening happens with NE-2 neons that I've used in high frequency systems as well. I have some that are so blackened it's hard to see them glowing, even.
But I think I've only blown out two filament bulbs during the whole time I've been experimenting with these systems and that was from DC both times.
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2015.04.27, 16:34:41
Yes, the capacitors in the loop-tank circuit do heat up. I've not been working at such high frequencies as you, my systems work at below 1 MHz, and also I've not used home-made capacitors, I use high-quality poly film caps for these systems. Haven't melted any solder or had cap failures, but sometimes the caps do get scary hot.
The power in the tank circuit in my systems is reactive power with current and voltage 90 degrees out-of-phase, but the current clearly has real effects because it creates the electromagnetic induction which transfers high power levels to the receiver. The voltage and current in the loop are many times higher than the supplied DC input V and I because of the resonant condition.
Two things about the light from the bulbs: they do get much brighter without blowing than they can get on DC, and the glass darkens and eventually becomes black from being coated by the metal boiling off the filaments (I think). This blackening happens with NE-2 neons that I've used in high frequency systems as well. I have some that are so blackened it's hard to see them glowing, even.
But I think I've only blown out two filament bulbs during the whole time I've been experimenting with these systems and that was from DC both times.
If I understand your post correctly: you are saying that in a part of your circuit the apparent voltage and inductance are technically "overunity" but this power cannot be retrieved from the circuit.
Is that a correct interpretation of your post?
Quote from: Aking.21 on 2015.04.27, 16:44:42
If I understand your post correctly: you are saying that in a part of your circuit the apparent voltage and inductance are technically "overunity" but this power cannot be retrieved from the circuit.
Is that a correct interpretation of your post?
"I" is current, not inductance. I don't know why we use "I" for current in Ohm's Law but there it is. V=IR, etc.
But yes, the current and voltage in the loop are much higher than the input DC current and voltage. But this is reactive power stored in a tank circuit. Some people have tried to call this "overunity in VARS", most notably the QEG promoters of "Fix The World" who somehow believe that this can be put to use. It can, but it is not "overunity" since you cannot extract power from the circuit faster than it is being replaced by the power supply, or the tank power will collapse. Just the same as pushing a child on a swing. Small pushes can build up quite high swing amplitudes and sustain those high amplitudes, but if you put a drag on the swing or try to take power out faster than you are supplying it, the amplitude will decrease or even stop swinging.
This is not "apparent" voltage and current, either, it is very real, since it has electromagnetic effects and even ohmic effects, heating the caps (sometimes) significantly and the loop itself slightly.
Perhaps you will be interested in this video playlist, where I illustrate this "overunity in VARs" for the benefit of the believers in the QEG. These are the videos and measurements that the PESN people accused me of faking, but there is no fakery here at all, and the circuit is known and published and anyone can build it and test it for themselves for less than 20 dollars in parts.
The first video, that caused all the fuss and accusations of fakery at PESN:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xuXBHJcNsk
Nothing is faked, everything is just as you see it in the video. I'm making the output power measurement just as the FTW people did in their "Morocco has overunity" video, except that they used a storebought current transformer for current sensing and I used an improvised one, and neither of us made correction for any possible phase shift introduced by the current sense method itself.
The rest of the playlist where power extraction, both LV and HV, is shown, and also the whole thing is explained:
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLml9VdOeqKa-k7J7vO_I22fVc-h8wcdLf
I haven't watched your vids yet but will. The aspect you touched upon is the very aspect Benitez uses in his 4 battery patent.
He uses a circuit in which he says you can get this extra power out. He puts his tank circuit in series with his "series-parallel 4 battery" charging circuit.
I've been on about Benitez for several years now.
http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Patents/Benitez/GB191514311A.pdf
Incidentally I meant to say amps not inductance. Been a long day.
Tinsel: Does your Siemens "spark gap" have a limited life? And where can they be purchased?
Quote from: Aking.21 on 2015.04.27, 23:39:22
Tinsel: Does your Siemens "spark gap" have a limited life? And where can they be purchased?
I don't know about the lifetime. These things are sold as "modem protectors" "surge protectors" and are sometimes called "gas discharge tubes" and are available in many different voltage ratings.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/261865307614?lpid=82&chn=ps
http://www.ebay.com/itm/3pcs-Joslyn-2031-47-BS-SVP-Tube-Gas-Discharge-Surge-Arrestor-470V-AXIAL-2-pins/111181676715?_trksid=p2054897.c100204.m3164&_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIC.MBE%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20140407115239%26meid%3D77d0db4192d6462db85072286b33fe44%26pid%3D100204%26rk%3D21%26rkt%3D30%26sd%3D261865307614
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2015.04.28, 02:14:16
I don't know about the lifetime. These things are sold as "modem protectors" "surge protectors" and are sometimes called "gas discharge tubes" and are available in many different voltage ratings.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/261865307614?lpid=82&chn=ps
http://www.ebay.com/itm/3pcs-Joslyn-2031-47-BS-SVP-Tube-Gas-Discharge-Surge-Arrestor-470V-AXIAL-2-pins/111181676715?_trksid=p2054897.c100204.m3164&_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIC.MBE%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20140407115239%26meid%3D77d0db4192d6462db85072286b33fe44%26pid%3D100204%26rk%3D21%26rkt%3D30%26sd%3D261865307614
Thatks for that. I've bought a few rated at 400 volts. As a matter of interest, what was your gas discharge tube rated at?
BTW I've watched your videos but they stopped a the end of July 2014. Did you ever try and loop it?
I personally am not a fan of Hope girl. There is nothing there in my opinion.
Quote from: Aking.21 on 2015.04.28, 03:56:18
Thatks for that. I've bought a few rated at 400 volts. As a matter of interest, what was your gas discharge tube rated at?
The one in the video is a Siemens 470-99 O , a 470 volt unit. I have another one around here somewhere that is 1.5 kV I think, but I can't find it at the moment.
Quote
BTW I've watched your videos but they stopped a the end of July 2014. Did you ever try and loop it?
I personally am not a fan of Hope girl. There is nothing there in my opinion.
Yep, nothing there but "hope" (among the believers) and cynicism. She's been on a permanent vacation paid for by people who believe her promises, since 2012 or before. They are in Morocco now because of two related things: The remnants of the "One People's Public Trust" including Heather Tucci-Jarraf are there, and Morocco has no extradition treaty with the USA.
No, the microQEG cannot be self-looped because it is not actually an overunity device. It merely pumps up its tank circuit to high voltage and current values, but you can only take power out as fast as it is being supplied, minus losses, or the tank will collapse. It is pretty efficient but the inevitable losses mean that the _real_ average power that can be taken from the tank is less than the average power it takes to run the device, unfortunately. You can certainly take out all the stored energy at once, at high peak power, but only for a very short time. Mosfets can literally explode from the peak power developed if the tank is shorted while full.
I lost interest in the QEG and moved on to other things. But that didn't stop "HopeGirl" from trying to get YT to take down my videos, by filing a false complaint against me! Needless to say, YT is smarter than she thinks, and all my videos discussing the hopeless FTW QEG remain.
Hi Aking Benitez very reminiscent of the Tesla switch thing that was the latest muse a few years ago. That there is substance to it I personally have little doubt. Still as with all things not fully understood the first faltering steps it seems all you get is a glimmer of the effect,
In the case of 'free energy' Its things which are not understood by most of us despite the fact its the very same most of us who have paid for the research, tptb of course muddy the water and hold that status quo >:( .
These flash arrestors/spark gaps I guess you can view as pretty similar to a neon bulb in that they 'flash' at a certain voltage depending on the gas . In the case of neon 70 or 80 volts here's a few oscillators and other circuits using neon's for your interest
http://www.bristolwatch.com/ele/neon.htm (http://www.bristolwatch.com/ele/neon.htm)
how long do they last ? In their comfort zone years and years I guess. Anyway I probably have quite a lot of what you seek Aking as I bought a box of Russian surplus some time ago
(http://dnp.s3.amazonaws.com/b/b9/High%20voltage%20protection.JPG)
if you want to email or pm me an address your welcome to half a dozen.
Regarding Benitiez I would respectfully suggest Aking that you have a long hard think about the system then compare common points with for instance the 3BGS as I recall we both wrestled with that. Whichever system your forced to conclude that at some stage one way or another more energy is being asked from a battery than it possibly has to offer , (be it from the ground or elsewhere) That being the case focus on the battery. Regard this webpage not particularly the Tesla switch ( which was the genesis for the 3BGS by the way) but rather the scalar battery charger .. I wouldn't bother building that circuit however it won't work like that but the idea's clear.
http://www.icehouse.net/john1/tesla.html
Some time later J L Naudin re-hashed the circuit of the 'scalar battery charger' so it would at least perform . The result can be seen here
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/scalchrg.htm (http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/scalchrg.htm)
keeping in mind Aking that the battery in question could be in the 3BGS, Benitez,Tesla switch, or Clemente Figuera's machine the same thing is being asked of it ergo the same thing is probably being done to it .
I would suggest even the rabid measurists that breed in a swamp somewhere and then slither out and infest forums would have difficulty with motors turning and lamps lit, all with no measurable supply voltage as Naudin shows ..wouldn't you?
Kind Regards Duncan
QuoteI would suggest even the rabid measurists that breed in a swamp somewhere and then slither out and infest forums would have difficulty with motors turning and lamps lit, all with no measurable supply voltage as Naudin shows ..wouldn't you?
Kind Regards Duncan
Preserved for the record. Your hypocrisy and insults are once again noted.
insulting who? hypocrisy about What exactly ? as for preserved I don't erase my posts so I would hope so O0
I think Duncan is wazzed off about some naysayers.
Let us keep a civilized tone please: life's too short...
Re Ne2s: In my opinion they do not operate the same as a spark gap/ gas discharge tube.
A spark gap can create oscillations in the Mhz range whereas an ne2 can "short" across, and loose those oscillations.
TK if the voltage and the current were to remain at exactly 90 degrees out of phase with each other than wouldn't the input drop to zero + losses, the losses being real power would mean that the phase could not possibly remain at exactly 90 degrees wouldn't it ? If it did the input of real power would stop.
Theoretically it should be impossible for a real world system to operate with no real power input. The losses are the real power and so the phase must be not exactly 90 logically.
So in reality even if we see 90 degrees phase difference on the scope real power and energy are being consumed, as indicated by the input power measurements.
In my experiments I see always a changing phase even when it varies from less than 90 to more than 90 degrees.
The real power input when the circuit shows 90 degrees phase difference has be be explained or explainable.
..