The bistander thread

[bistander]

Let me throw out some things I have learned from building the machines I have built.
When a coil (with a core) is introduced to a rotor, the prime mover slows down. With one coil, (and its core) this is barely noticeable. With 4 or more coils (and their cores) it is VERY apparent. This is a (- EFFECT) as far as I am concerned because it affects output. I am adding the ridiculous "and their cores" because bi insists that they are two different things so when I say putting a coil somewhere has a certain effect, he insists that I am wrong because it is the CORE that is having the effect. He is unable to assume that a coil has a core, even though I have stated on multiple occasions that all MY coils have cores in them.

If I build a single strand coil (with a core) that is 3,000 feet long, I can get it to speed up under load, (+ EFFECT) but the required RPM is quite high. By putting a capacitor across that coil, I can bring the rpm down to a reasonable amount, but now I have high voltage and very little amperage. NOT what I am looking for.

I can build a 3 strand coil (with a core) of 1000 feet per strand and my amp draw goes up and the voltage goes down, but with the old rotor I was still at 2800 RPM plus for it to get that (+ EFFECT) of speeding up under load..

When I went to 6 strands in parallel with groups of two connected in series, I got greater amp output as with the previous coil (and its core) and lower voltage output. The required RPM was lower. (+ EFFECT) BUT the amp draw of the prime mover was HIGHER to move the rotor past the coil (and its core) in a NO LOAD situation for some reason (-EFFECT) and the RPM in a NO LOAD situation was decreased. (-EFFECT)

When put under load, the RPM would increase back up to where it was with the 3 strand coil (and its core) of 1,000 feet per strand. I am not an electrical engineer, so I can only go by what I see. I have a vague idea why, but it really doesn't matter to me. It is what it is, and I am looking for effects. That was the "effect" I saw, and what I had to deal with.

As I added more coils (and their cores) I saw that the relationship was not coil (and its core) gives X (- EFFECT) and adding coil 2 (and its core) means the effect is 2X (- EFFECT). I saw that there was a curve, and that each coil (and its core) added increased the (- EFFECT) more than the previous coil (and its core) had. With only four coils (and their cores) on the machine I soon burnt up the MY1016 razor scooter motor I was using as prime mover. I burnt up several. I finally switched to the MY1020 I am using today.

With ZERO coils (and their cores) on my big machine, the amp draw on the MY1020 at 36 volts was 7 amps or 252 watts.

I could get the machine up to speed and THEN start putting coils (and their cores) in place, and the amp draw (with the coils [and their cores] unloaded) would go up to over 27 amps, which is the rated amp draw of the motor. It is rated at 27.5 amps, so I burnt up a few of these motors too, operating on the ragged edge or trying to start it up with too many coils (and their cores) already in place.

But even the MY1020 did NOT have enough power to get the rotor up to speed from a dead stop with all the coils (and their cores) in place. It could only handle about four coils (and their cores), so I developed the use of what I called "neutralizing magnets" to offset the attraction of the rotor magnets to the coil cores.

With the neutralizing magnets in place, I could bring that amp draw of the motor turning the rotor past 12 UNLOADED coils (and their cores) down to 9 amps at speed, but it would still pop up over 30 amps for a split second on start up to get things moving.

It has long been my opinion that "speed up under load" is actually a "return to speed" that you would have seen had the coil (and its core) been simply a single stranded coil (and its core). Tesla style coils (and their cores) bog you down when unloaded and allow you to return to the correct speed and amp draw when loaded. HOWEVER, magnetic neutralization cancels out that negative effect of the Tesla wound coil, (and its core) so if you have neutralized the effect and the motor is operating close to the speed it should have been, when the Tesla style coil (and its core) is put under load, the motor will speed up to an RPM greater than it would have had the coil (and its core) been a single strand coil. (with a core) But I don't want that, because its output isn't as great. I want it to be "null". Neither speeding up nor slowing down the motor.

I am not an electrical engineer. I am a former high school teacher and principal. I see "effects" that take place when I do certain things, and I try to figure out ways to use those effects to my advantage. I don't care about "Laws". I care about results. My machine does what I claim it does because I have seen certain effects and learned how to incorporate them into the working design of my generator.

Thane may have discovered many incredible things about these kind of coils that I am unaware of because I do not follow his work. What I have seen is that they have a NEGATIVE effect when unloaded. and that when loaded, that negative effect goes away. I look at it like this

As far as input to the prime mover goes:

Standard coil (and its core) is at -0- when unloaded
When Loaded it goes NEGATIVE because of increased amp draw on the motor and decreased RPM. This is NOT APPARENT with only one coil (and its core), but add 10 more coils (and their cores) and tell me it isn't happening. And each coil (and its core) moves you MORE into the negative than the one before it.

Tesla wound coil (and its core) starts you out in the NEGATIVE compared to where a standard coil (and its core) starts you out.
When loaded you move to -0- BUT, to move you to the -0- point it had to speed up, which means less output as a generator coil than it is capable of
So while under load there is NO increased amp draw on the motor and NO decrease in rpm

The output of the two coils (and their cores) in watts is the same (SHOWN IN THE DEBUNKER VIDEO)

Tesla wound coil (and its core) with magnetic neutralization in place is -0-
When loaded (and balanced properly) you remain at -0-
No increased amp draw and no decrease in motor RPM

BUT, it has MORE OUTPUT in the Neutral position than EITHER of the other two examples.. These kind of coils ALWAYS put out the most when they are in the 'NULL" position, and that output is GREATER than a "standard coil" because they have a GRTEATER CAPACITANCE. That is why I am so careful NOT to let my coils speed up under load. I want their greatest output as generator coils.

The best a "speed up under load coil" is going to get you is the SAME amp draw and the SAME RPM of the prime mover as a standard coil which is NOT UNDER LOAD. and the SAME output as a standard coil. And with each additional coil that amp draw is going to get greater and the RPM is going to go down, UNLESS you use "Speed up under load to "neutralize" it, (YOU CAN) and sacrifice output as a generator coil in the process. The more you 'speed up" the less you generate. You can't have both.

That is why I am unclear about the advantages of "regenerative acceleration" that Thane talks about. I haven't studied it AT ALL.

With the addition of magnetic neutralization you get LESS amp draw and GREATER rpm of the prime mover, and you can add as many coils as you want and all you do is increase the output.That is why I have gone the direction I have gone.

Thane may have found a way around all these issues. I have no idea. I do not follow his work. bro Mikey will know way more about Thane than I will ever know.

Hi Turion,

Wow, that's a lot of info. I want to comment on one early item where I'm mentioned, namely the coil and core remark. Yes, I do like to differentiate or specify each separately. The coil(s) and core(s) are separate aspects to or subsystems of the generator (or motor). Each is responsible for different behavior, or effects. Early on, when we were discussing cogging, you kept referring to coils when it is only cores which cause cogging and coils have no influence. Similarly coils have no influence on core losses, or magnetic drag, only the core(s) and magnets do.

Lately you've been evaluating different core material. Although core permeability can affect coil performance, the core loss (eddy current and hysteresis) are the overwhelming contributor to heat generated in the core. As such, core loss characterization tests, and I have done these, are typically conducted without armature coils in place. This would be particularly relevant due to the nature of loss at no-load caused by the bifilar coil. I realize in your machine configuration testing with cores and without coils may be problematic.

I'm glad to see you in a civil discussion with a member. Unfortunately it occurs on a thread where I avoid posting. I hope you learn some things from this fellow.

Regards,
bi

[BroMikey]

What's wrong with me asking for proof of that claim from you?
bi

That is not what you do. You first twist every word a person says then proceed to call that person a freaking A hole liar. That is your kindest approach. This sidewinder action tells the story of personality. Every loving and hopeful instruction has been presented to you and you just snicker under your breath because you love to hate.

It's no problem but remember that this love for hate will eat your soul.

[bistander]

And once again you prove your mind is closed so tight it won’t even squeak, which is why, despite the fact that I have things I would like to share, I will never share them with you or on any thread you have access to.

You're the one with the squeaky mind. You talk out of both sides of your mouth and make absolutely no sense, but then blame me.

You made an extraordinary claim, to the world, in which I reside. What's wrong with me asking for proof of that claim from you?
bi

[Turion]

And once again you prove your mind is closed so tight it won’t even squeak, which is why, despite the fact that I have things I would like to share, I will never share them with you or on any thread you have access to.

[bistander]

I believe, but I also question. I have seen more out than in on the bench. 40 watts continuous for a month before it was shut down. And it has been replicated a several times and is in the process of being scaled up. If all the “Laws” are true, that would not be possible in a closed system. So either there is an external input to the system that I do not understand, and it is NOT a closed system, or a “Law” is incorrect. When something cannot be explained, as far as I am concerned the “Laws” are out the window. You look at the FACTS and go from there. You don’t “assume” anything just because someone says it’s a “Law.”

The Benitez stuff ABSOLUTELY works. But solar is cheaper. And you don’t need all those batteries.

"So either there is an external input to the system that I do not understand, and it is NOT a closed system, or a “Law” is incorrect."

Bingo! And when the law is hundreds of years old and tested and verified, proven millions of times to 100%, verses your understanding in a field of which you have no education and little knowledge, really, which is more likely?

Just kidding about 2000W_out/300W_in also? What's the difference between a lie and a joke from you?

For those interested in how to properly use closed and open systems in analysis, this video may help. It deals with conservation of momentum, but system definition applies elsewhere, like Law of Conservation of Energy.

https://youtu.be/VYKuZpmP8i8

Regards,
bi

[Turion]

By the way, just kidding with all of this Of COURSE energy is neither created nor destroyed.

I believe, but I also question. I have seen more out than in on the bench. 40 watts continuous for a month before it was shut down. And it has been replicated a several times and is in the process of being scaled up. If all the “Laws” are true, that would not be possible in a closed system. So either there is an external input to the system that I do not understand, and it is NOT a closed system, or a “Law” is incorrect. When something cannot be explained, as far as I am concerned the “Laws” are out the window. You look at the FACTS and go from there. You don’t “assume” anything just because someone says it’s a “Law.”

The Benitez stuff ABSOLUTELY works. But solar is cheaper. And you don’t need all those batteries.

[bistander]

bi,
If you want to raise a flag, Flag Day is June 14.
Do I truly believe that energy can neither be created nor destroyed? Yes, I do. The difference between you and me is when I see something on the bench that doesn’t fit with what I have been taught, rather than dismiss it out of hand, I am willing to consider that what I have been taught MIGHT be incorrect. I don’t automatically assume that things MUST be a certain way just because someone else says so. Or because there is a LAW. Case in point, Lenz. It is a Law, but yet it can be engineered around. So what does that make it? Lenz law states that a certain reaction will take place. It does NOT say that you MUST operate your machine at a frequency that lets it affect the rotation of the rotor now does it?

To prove that energy can neither be created nor destroyed in the Universe you would have to prove it by constantly measuring all the energy in the universe. Not possible. But the law REALLY states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed in a “closed system”. Researchers SHOULD be able to create circumstances where that is measurable. Maybe, but I don't believe so. Even closed loop electrical systems dissipate heat, or we wouldn't need heat sinks on components, so what is a closed system? Does one really exist? Water running through pipes is affected by the temperature of the pipes which are affected buy the ground or air or whatever they are run through which is affected by the sun, which is affected by the the empty space around it. It boils down to the 'closed system" being the Universe, so who is to say that creating some energy "here" isn't offset by something happening in some other galaxy. How can they ever be sure they are measuring all the different “conditions” that affect the closed system in which the reaction takes place. How can they “know" that the container of the closed system itself is not somehow contributing to whatever reaction is taking place?

What if the 1st Law of thermodynamics is like Lenz, and can be engineered around? If you don’t believe Lenz can be, you are incorrect.

When I see more energy coming out of a supposed "closed loop system" than what was put in, I am willing to question EVERYTHING, as well I should. That is how we learn. But when I see more out than in, I have to ask myself, where did the extra come from? Was it created? Can electricity be manipulated in ways we did not previously understand? How is this possible? Under present “Laws” it should not be possible. So what “Law” do we have wrong when it clearly IS happening. Do I believe the first law of thermodynamics is incorrect? Not really. But I am willing to consider the possibility because obviously we have SOMETHING wrong. I question EVERYTHING. See my sign off. It is what I believe to be true.

“Advances are made by answering questions. Discoveries are made by questioning answers.”
—Bernhard Haisch, Astrophysicist

By the way, I'm 66 years old. The only people whose opinion of me matters to me are my immediate family, so nothing anyone else has to say about me or to me is going to faze me in any way. Oh, I may get ticked off when you call me a liar, fraud and con man, but when I look at the things I have running on my bench do you think that REALLY matters in the grand scheme of things? Geeze, I'm getting old. I spelled faze...phaze, and had to correct it. This isn't Star Trek. Teleportation isn't real. Or is it? Hmmm

Saved for later.
bi

[bistander]

...
Do I truly believe that energy can neither be created nor destroyed? Yes, I do. ...

... Energy CAN be created. ...

You contradict yourself. What gives?
bi

[Turion]

bi,
If you want to raise a flag, Flag Day is June 14.
Do I truly believe that energy can neither be created nor destroyed? Yes, I do. The difference between you and me is when I see something on the bench that doesn’t fit with what I have been taught, rather than dismiss it out of hand, I am willing to consider that what I have been taught MIGHT be incorrect. I don’t automatically assume that things MUST be a certain way just because someone else says so. Or because there is a LAW. Case in point, Lenz. It is a Law, but yet it can be engineered around. So what does that make it? Lenz law states that a certain reaction will take place. It does NOT say that you MUST operate your machine at a frequency that lets it affect the rotation of the rotor now does it?

To prove that energy can neither be created nor destroyed in the Universe you would have to prove it by constantly measuring all the energy in the universe. Not possible. But the law REALLY states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed in a “closed system”. Researchers SHOULD be able to create circumstances where that is measurable. Maybe, but I don't believe so. Even closed loop electrical systems dissipate heat, or we wouldn't need heat sinks on components, so what is a closed system? Does one really exist? Water running through pipes is affected by the temperature of the pipes which are affected buy the ground or air or whatever they are run through which is affected by the sun, which is affected by the the empty space around it. It boils down to the 'closed system" being the Universe, so who is to say that creating some energy "here" isn't offset by something happening in some other galaxy. How can they ever be sure they are measuring all the different “conditions” that affect the closed system in which the reaction takes place. How can they “know" that the container of the closed system itself is not somehow contributing to whatever reaction is taking place?

What if the 1st Law of thermodynamics is like Lenz, and can be engineered around? If you don’t believe Lenz can be, you are incorrect.

When I see more energy coming out of a supposed "closed loop system" than what was put in, I am willing to question EVERYTHING, as well I should. That is how we learn. But when I see more out than in, I have to ask myself, where did the extra come from? Was it created? Can electricity be manipulated in ways we did not previously understand? How is this possible? Under present “Laws” it should not be possible. So what “Law” do we have wrong when it clearly IS happening. Do I believe the first law of thermodynamics is incorrect? Not really. But I am willing to consider the possibility because obviously we have SOMETHING wrong. I question EVERYTHING. See my sign off. It is what I believe to be true.

“Advances are made by answering questions. Discoveries are made by questioning answers.”
—Bernhard Haisch, Astrophysicist

By the way, I'm 66 years old. The only people whose opinion of me matters to me are my immediate family, so nothing anyone else has to say about me or to me is going to faze me in any way. Oh, I may get ticked off when you call me a liar, fraud and con man, but when I look at the things I have running on my bench do you think that REALLY matters in the grand scheme of things? Geeze, I'm getting old. I spelled faze...phaze, and had to correct it. This isn't Star Trek. Teleportation isn't real. Or is it? Hmmm

[Quantum_well]

Thank you bi, I'm an old farmer and it's over 60 years since I was in education. These things are quite a challenge when it's not your every day job.I really enjoy thinking about this when I'm outside working.

[bistander]

Hi Quantum_well,

Sorry to reply on different thread, but I try to avoid a certain member. Anyway, regarding your post on inductance calculation:

I had a go at the inductance. The series coil I estimated at 1000 turns, coil diam. 30mm, coil length 75mm.Air core.
I made that to about 10mH. 3 in parallel 3.3333 mH. I've no idea what the permeability of a core material might be.
Nice to hear someone else's idea.

In this case, the 3-in parallel are wound together essentially becoming the same (for inductance) as a single of 3 times the cross sectional area. So the equivalent inductance would remain at 10mH, would it not?
bi

[dragon]

Our world is energy. Everything is in constant motion. There is always an imbalance... every event that occurs is the result of another event which in turn creates another new event. The same energy over and over continuously expanding and contracting creating imbalances in every moment of every day. Connecting our machines to "the wheelwork of nature", as Tesla stated, for us to see and understand how nature interacts then learn to harness and extract that energy. Well organized random events to be harvested for our needs.

If we pour the salt from a shaker on a table and spread out the grains, choose one grain ... lets call that earth and the remaining grains make up the universe as we think we know it. We are but a speck in this massive creation. It would be pretty arrogant to even consider we could create a single machine that could even come close to creating energy/nature. To create a machine or device that could harness/extract/harvest natural energies ... now that is doable...

[bistander]

I have shared no working device that violates the "law of conservation of energy" that anyone would pay any attention to. My work on the 3 battery system did, but NEVER output more than was put in, so nobody would ever realize it unless I pointed it out to them. The thing is, the law of conservation of energy is BS. And BS doesn't stand for bi stander. (At least not in this case)

We create energy with devices and circuits ALL THE TIME. If you really THINK about it. The problem is, we use up energy to do it, so this has been "defined" by science as "converting" it to a different form. It really isn't. Yet we hang onto these outdated terms and concepts because we live in a box of our own making.

Presently we build devices into which we put X amount of energy and X (minus Y) energy comes out, so we believe that energy can be neither created nor destroyed, and that is a fundamental principal on which our science is built. Because we NEVER get back more than what we put in. X got "all used up" and all we got was X (minus Y) so it MUST have been converted. No. It was just "used up" in the process of creating LESS energy than we input. We didn't do a very good job because we didn't get as much out as we put in. If we achieve 95% "efficiency" we believe we are gifted.

But what happens when we learn to use X amount of energy to make X (minus Y) amount of energy and recover 95% of X as well? That is where experiments with the 3 battery system have led. You don't have to believe it is possible. I don't care. You don't have to believe prototypes exist. I don't care. You don't have to believe anything I say, and will probably choose not to. That's your choice. But I know what is possible. Look at the Benitez patents and build a device with current battery technology that doesn't lose everything possible to ridiculous battery impedance. I know an Electrical Engineer who has. There is more than one way to skin this cat. I have witnessed a couple and REPLICATED one. I did not design it or build the original. But the thing both devices I am aware of have in common are the principles behind the 3 Battery System and the Tesla Switch. Running between the positives. NEVER run any device or circuit unless you run it between the positives and recover SOME, and in optimal cases, MOST of the energy you USED UP to "CREATE ENERGY". When you run between the positives you do not "USE UP" all the energy you input to get your output

Our devices are USING UP energy to CREATE ENERGY. They are NOT "converting it to another form." SORRY to burst your bubble. I know nobody will believe this, but that's fine with me. Let's say I put this forward as a hypothesis. How would you prove it or disprove it? Don't "consult the textbooks". For once in your life, be a real researcher and explore it as a possibility. Because that's what REAL researchers do. SOMEONE decided that energy was "converted" and that we cannot "create" energy? What if they had instead, put forward the hypothesis I just shared. Would IT be disproven? I think not. The Devil is in the details folks. You have to think outside the box they have put you in. If you QUIT thinking that energy is "converted" and start considering it is actually "used up" to create a slightly less amount of energy, it changes the way you think. And that, my friends, can set you free. Or not. You're welcome to believe what you choose to believe. We all are.

But if we ACCEPT this new hypothesis, how does that change our perspective?

Well.... If we believe that when we put in X, no matter how efficient we are in "conversion" the most we can ever get out is "X".

But if we believe that X is "used up" when we are trying to use it to produce energy, we have two possibilities before us. Use it MORE EFFICIENTLY which would allow us to get out closer to what we put in. Or use it WITHOUT USING IT UP, to continue being able to use it. I don't know if any of you have been around long enough to remember when we talked about cascading systems using batteries. It's like the three battery system only with a huge battery bank. You run a load between four batteries and three batteries, then between three batteries and two batteries. Then between two batteries and one battery. Eventually you get to the bottom of the hill, and you're done, but I built a similar system for my dad who was on solar, and I know of at least one other individual who did the same thing and one researcher who REALLY explored this. I was able to extend my dad's run times on his solar system by running his inverter between the solar controller and the charge batteries. And then between groups of batteries at night. In essence he used the SAME energy more than once. This is just an example of the direction to start looking. But do what you want. Listen to who you want to. I'm not sharing any research on this topic. But because I understand exactly what is possible, I was willing to give away my generator on this forum rather than try to sell it or develop it.

When you understand how this works, you can run the world on a single battery.

And now for bi's thoughtful analysis. (I thought you'd be delighted by the part where I said the law of conservation of energy is BS)

By the way, just kidding with all of this Of COURSE energy is neither created nor destroyed. Who could possibly believe otherwise? After all it's a LAW, and everyone and everything always obeys the LAWS.

Thanks for sharing.
bi
edit:
Any reasonable person would consider that you have shared. Making this statement false.

... NOTHING I’ve shared violates the laws ...

Sharing your extraordinary claim also demonstrates that statement as false.

Any reasonable person would also determine, from your 'energy can be created' explanation, that you think that you know more, and therefore are smarter, than all the scientists and engineers with whom you disagree. Doesn't that raise a flag?

[Turion]

I have shared no working device that violates the "law of conservation of energy" that anyone would pay any attention to. My work on the 3 battery system did, but NEVER output more than was put in, so nobody would ever realize it unless I pointed it out to them. The thing is, the law of conservation of energy is BS. And BS doesn't stand for bi stander. (At least not in this case)

We create energy with devices and circuits ALL THE TIME. If you really THINK about it. The problem is, we use up energy to do it, so this has been "defined" by science as "converting" it to a different form. It really isn't. Yet we hang onto these outdated terms and concepts because we live in a box of our own making.

Presently we build devices into which we put X amount of energy and X (minus Y) energy comes out, so we believe that energy can be neither created nor destroyed, and that is a fundamental principal on which our science is built. Because we NEVER get back more than what we put in. X got "all used up" and all we got was X (minus Y) so it MUST have been converted. No. It was just "used up" in the process of creating LESS energy than we input. We didn't do a very good job because we didn't get as much out as we put in. If we achieve 95% "efficiency" we believe we are gifted.

But what happens when we learn to use X amount of energy to make X (minus Y) amount of energy and recover 95% of X as well? That is where experiments with the 3 battery system have led. You don't have to believe it is possible. I don't care. You don't have to believe prototypes exist. I don't care. You don't have to believe anything I say, and will probably choose not to. That's your choice. But I know what is possible. Look at the Benitez patents and build a device with current battery technology that doesn't lose everything possible to ridiculous battery impedance. I know an Electrical Engineer who has. There is more than one way to skin this cat. I have witnessed a couple and REPLICATED one. I did not design it or build the original. But the thing both devices I am aware of have in common are the principles behind the 3 Battery System and the Tesla Switch. Running between the positives. NEVER run any device or circuit unless you run it between the positives and recover SOME, and in optimal cases, MOST of the energy you USED UP to "CREATE ENERGY". When you run between the positives you do not "USE UP" all the energy you input to get your output

Our devices are USING UP energy to CREATE ENERGY. They are NOT "converting it to another form." SORRY to burst your bubble. I know nobody will believe this, but that's fine with me. Let's say I put this forward as a hypothesis. How would you prove it or disprove it? Don't "consult the textbooks". For once in your life, be a real researcher and explore it as a possibility. Because that's what REAL researchers do. SOMEONE decided that energy was "converted" and that we cannot "create" energy? What if they had instead, put forward the hypothesis I just shared. Would IT be disproven? I think not. The Devil is in the details folks. You have to think outside the box they have put you in. If you QUIT thinking that energy is "converted" and start considering it is actually "used up" to create a slightly less amount of energy, it changes the way you think. And that, my friends, can set you free. Or not. You're welcome to believe what you choose to believe. We all are.

But if we ACCEPT this new hypothesis, how does that change our perspective?

Well.... If we believe that when we put in X, no matter how efficient we are in "conversion" the most we can ever get out is "X".

But if we believe that X is "used up" when we are trying to use it to produce energy, we have two possibilities before us. Use it MORE EFFICIENTLY which would allow us to get out closer to what we put in. Or use it WITHOUT USING IT UP, to continue being able to use it. I don't know if any of you have been around long enough to remember when we talked about cascading systems using batteries. It's like the three battery system only with a huge battery bank. You run a load between four batteries and three batteries, then between three batteries and two batteries. Then between two batteries and one battery. Eventually you get to the bottom of the hill, and you're done, but I built a similar system for my dad who was on solar, and I know of at least one other individual who did the same thing and one researcher who REALLY explored this. I was able to extend my dad's run times on his solar system by running his inverter between the solar controller and the charge batteries. And then between groups of batteries at night. In essence he used the SAME energy more than once. This is just an example of the direction to start looking. But do what you want. Listen to who you want to. I'm not sharing any research on this topic. But because I understand exactly what is possible, I was willing to give away my generator on this forum rather than try to sell it or develop it.

When you understand how this works, you can run the world on a single battery.

And now for bi's thoughtful analysis. (I thought you'd be delighted by the part where I said the law of conservation of energy is BS)

By the way, just kidding with all of this Of COURSE energy is neither created nor destroyed. Who could possibly believe otherwise? After all it's a LAW, and everyone and everything always obeys the LAWS.

[bistander]

... Energy CAN be created. ...

... NOTHING I’ve shared violates the laws ...

The law of conservation of energy states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed - only converted from one form of energy to another.

https://energyeducation.ca/encyclope...20to%20another.

Some contradiction here, isn't there?
bi