@ Jim- My knee-jerk reaction to you calling me SCAM and being so sarcastic and uninformed on the topic was to lash out. I will not, I will remain civil. Granted, the second alternator detracts from the efficiency of the arrangement. That is something that has been in the back of my mind since the projects inception. It's called experimentation. If the numbers come back and they are not as I anticipate, then I will remove the stock 100A that's there now and put the 150A in its place. As far as the physics of the thing goes and perpetual motion (please...) I don't know. I never really was very good at higher maths and would not even begin to debate with you why the "numbers" say it won't work. I personally know several people that are running systems and enjoying reduced fuel costs. Some of them are even my friends. I don't profess to know why it works, I just know that it does work. I'm at work now, but when I get home I will be more than happy to email you a copy of the JPL's findings on the subject. Maybe you'll believe them. Jim, this is the only time I will respond to you with such restraint, actually I think this is the only time I will respond to you on this board, period.