Does it matter what type of voltage is applied to the helium canister? I don't know... I would expect that it must be a varying voltage source of either a square wave (as in the case of the Joseph Newman device... https://is.gd/kogina), or else it might be a sine wave. But what if it's not necessary to have a varying voltage source? Then, we could save the voltage from becoming a drain of amp-hours by placing a blocking capacitor in front of at least one terminal of the battery so as to *borrow* the voltage to stimulate the helium. Or, we could use a precharged capacitor instead of a battery? I suspect this latter possibility was (indeed) what technique Tesla employed in 1931. But there were two versions of helium driving an EV. The one initiated by the Amman brothers in 1921 and Tesla's replication and improvements of 1931. So, let's begin at the beginning... https://is.gd/ammanbros I added some files to the zipped file that the link, above, downloads. I didn’t change version three, but I added version five which has a capacitor in parallel with the inductive load and an additional resistor to help the simulator do its job which I imagine is comparable to the circuit becoming more likely to function properly in the real world just as the simulator is attempting to make it function properly in its virtual world. I also corrected the text on the schematic in an attempt to loosely equate Eric Dollard‘s daisychained analog computer in LMD mode to the Amman brothers’ circuitry. I want to believe that Tesla made two EV conversions: one in 1931 and another in 1897 which are very similar in many respects but are different in that the latter of the two is far simpler. The 1931 version (I think) is a replication of the Amman Brothers of 1921 with a few modifications in the direction of improved efficiency but fundamentally the same. Essentially, I think what the Amman brothers did, was connect their DC dynamo generator (that was intended to recharge their 6V car battery) in parallel with the two bronze spheres located in the headlight sockets of their car (after having removed the car’s headlights). These spheres were filled with helium and opened up to an interconnecting bronze tube (also filled with helium) which bent around in a U-shape inside a steel drum tied to the front end of their car. The steel drum contained a stack of pancake coils whose center was threading the bronze tube. The pancake coils are not wound with copper wire, but are wound with iron wire. The diameter of the pancake coils and the quantity of them (stacked) might be inversely proportional to the voltage applied to the bronze spheres? These coils are intended to extract the magnetic field coming out of the helium tube at their center. At least that’s my guess. The diode rectification (of the output of automobile alternators installed in cars after 1960) is removed (in this case) so that an alternating voltage can be fed to the bronze spheres. The voltage feeding the bronze spheres has to be a variable voltage - either DC voltage with a commutator creating a square wave, or else some other waveform that changes its voltage over time to employ frequency, because the frequency will modify the rate of reactance of the helium. The above would be a description of the Amman brothers' version of 1921. But what follows is the modification (or at least some of them) which Tesla may have managed to make 10 years later… Since a variable voltage is required to stimulate the helium to create an electromagnetic current, there is another way to do this… I suspect that Tesla had placed a capacitor inside his 2 foot long by 1 foot wide wooden project box that sat to his immediate right on the front bench seat of his 1931 Pierce Arrow. And this capacitor was pre-charged to a very high value (let’s say 1000V to pick a number out of a hat). And this was connected to a bronze tube containing helium at the center of the pancake-shaped, stator coils of the motor (wound with iron wire) at the front end of the car connected to his wooden project box with two very heavy cables. I want to believe that the reason why these cables were heavy was due to the fact that they were coaxial cables with heavy-duty insulation and the coax was grounded to the chassis of the car. Well, something else was connected to the chassis of the car and that is (of course) one of the two terminals of the battery (which in those days would’ve been the positive terminal if I’m not mistaken). In any case, it’s crucial that the voltage of one of the two helium containers is varied (one of the two terminals at the very least) with respect to the voltage of the other helium container which can remain constant so that the net result is a net variable voltage. I believe this is the purpose of the aerial connected to the back end of the Pierce Arrow 1931 demonstration. In that, the aerial was connected to the chassis of the car and the chassis was charged with the electrical ground neutral of the battery electrical system (or at least the electrical system of the motor driving this car). Since the chassis of the car is considered electrical ground neutral (and a floating ground), this ground neutral is allowed to vary (slightly) over time due to the ionization forming around the aerial at the back end of the car draining off (or leaking off) some of the voltage of the car at a variable rate due to the flow of air blowing across that aerial (and other variable factors, such as: variable humidity, etc) causing a random variation of bleed off (from the ground neutral represented by the chassis of this car). Since the car’s chassis is considered to be electrical ground neutral, then this makes this one of the two terminals of voltage charging Tesla's stator coils (with helium cores) which means we automatically have a variable voltage without having to actively vary this. Instead, we’re passively accomplished the same thing and will get the helium to react in a variable manner so that a current can develop in the pancake, stator coils (surrounding the helium canisters) which are extracting the magnetic field (which emanates from the helium). To clarify... In both instances: either Tesla's replication of the Amman brothers' EV conversion, and the Amman brothers' original variety, we have two options for varying voltage input. One method may be to voluntarily vary the voltage (such as I do within this simulation) with either a sine wave generator (or a radio tuner fed from an aerial), or else use a commutator arrangement on the output of a pre-1960s dynamo DC generator, or an alternator erupting AC sine waves (after removal of its diode rectification). Another method would be to input a steady-state, DC voltage and vary this input (ever so slightly) by using an aerial connected to the electrical ground neutral of the chassis of this EV conversion (in Tesla's case), or expose the surface of the helium canisters (or a portion of them) to the air (in the Amman brothers' situation: they exposed the front face of their two bronze spheres seated in the headlight sockets of their car). QUESTION But it uses batteries all the time or get it's energy from external source? ANSWER Battery, precharged capacitor or electret or solar panel. But the beautiful part is that, if it is a battery, a blocking capacitor can be placed inline at one terminal to block DC drainage of amp-hours. What I found from simulating this last condition is that the influx of negative current tends to be slightly greater than the outflow of positive current making this an ideal setting for “topping off” the batteries with a trickle charge. Since this style of circuitry does not require an external power source, but does require an external source of stimulation, care must be taken to restrict external sources of power to protect them from overload. Reactance can act like a sponge sucking energy from out of source if allowed to do so without restrictions. Reactance must be put on a restricted diet of source voltage to enable it into a state of energy self-reliance or else it will behave like a spoiled rich kid demanding ever-increasing amounts of source energy in an irresponsible manner. This may be why reactance has been the bane of electrical engineers? For there are two sides to reactance: both good and bad. We have to take care to restrict our use of reactance to that aspect which helps our appliances rather than depleting them of precious resources (which may be in short supply or else cost a premium)! COMMENT There is no ignorance about free energy. The thing is, that the term used by pseudoscientists, means something different in real science. From Wikipedia: "The thermodynamic free energy is a concept useful in the thermodynamics of chemical or thermal processes in engineering and science. The change in the free energy is the maximum amount of work that a thermodynamic system can perform in a process at constant temperature, and its sign indicates whether a process is thermodynamically favorable or forbidden." However there is no such thing as getting energy out of thin air. RESPONSE Correct. Free energy is not kinetic. It is potential taking the form of electrical reactance derivable from the manipulation of time (frequency and phase relations) or else it is not freely available. In other words, space imposes the limitations of thermodynamics upon energy. Meanwhile, time imposes the limitations of logarithmic rates of expansion or contraction upon reactance. Overall energy is homogeneous in as much as all gains and losses are accounted for resulting in “no free lunches” of energy. Yet, reactance cannot maintain itself. It must inflict self-induced alteration of amplitude (via alterations of frequency) whose resultant is the same amplitude per greater or lesser unit of time giving the illusion that energy has been manufactured (per units of time) out of thin air. Our mistaken assessment is due to our misdirection of attention to details. It’s interesting to note that all changes to current arises from the inductive reactance of coils and the capacitive reactance of capacitors indicating that current cannot become a steady state. Only voltage is capable of a steady state. Air is adequate as a reactant stimulus and inadequate as a source for power. The distribution of power to satisfy anyone’s need hides the freedom of energy independence predicated on the in-house reactant expansion or contraction (per unit time) of whatever scant or abundant energy is already available at any location. Hence, free energy is available “whenever” energy is available without any imperative consideration for its location if reactance is used as the tool for leveraging time. Location is an irrelevant consideration whenever reactance is concerned. So, I don’t even consider “thermodynamic free energy” for that would evade its true causation within the realm of time. Reactance is incapable of performing any work. Yet, reactance is not useless once power factor correction is applied. The simplest power factor correction results from the resistance of a spark gap - to give, but one example.