Critics of the “energy-from-water” hydrogen extraction concept are quick to cite the first law of thermodynamics, stating that a perpetual-motion machine is not possible. But they fail to note that no claim to such a machine is being made.
In insisting that hydrogen generators can’t work in cars, a false assumption is at work; that the existing car engine is an efficient closed energy loop - input equals output - with no spare energy for the electrolysis process. Since mileage improvement with hydrogen generators has already been observed, and since not all such improvements can be attributed to altered driving habits, the only possibility is that, with the alternator whirring away, the charging system can produce excess electrical energy, more than the engine needs. The hydrogen generator is merely using some of that available energy for electrolysis. Additionally, the resulting hydrogen in this case is supplementing gasoline, not replacing it; perhaps even improving gasoline combustion. No perpetual motion claim here.
So, yes, these devices do not (yet) violate the laws of thermodynamics. And, yes, they aren’t perfect. But it is finally time for a complete shift in thinking on the hydrogen issue.
You want proof? take a hydrogen generator like mine or several systems that product a liter per minute of HHO gas from a car battery. Have it run into the throttle body of the engine for 45 minutes “with out” the engine running. then, turn the car on.... BOOM!!! I know this for a fact, it was part of my testing and it is also the reason I have insurance for these types of installs. This blew the top end of the engine up.
As to your claim, the energy flow in an automobile basically works as follows:
gasoline combustion -> mechanical energy + electrical energy (to the alternator) + heat loss
It is well established chemistry that it requires more energy to crack water into hydrogen and oxygen (via electrolysis) than can be obtained by later burning the hydrogen.
Therefore, in terms of combustion, you are actually losing useful energy by first producing hydrogen and oxygen and then burning at as fuel, because the energy needed to crack the water comes from burning gasoline via the alternator.
This is why your claim violates the rules of basic thermodynamics.
The only other possible way your claim could be true is if the addition of hydrogen to the combustion process somehow acts as a "special sauce" that improves the combustion efficiency of gasoline to the point where that extra efficiency can offset the energy loss in producing the hydrogen.
While this is theoretically possible, it is not plausible. First, there is no science to suggest that this is true, and second, if it were true, automobile companies would have been including hydrolysis systems in cars for years.
Therefore, I conclude your claims are impossible, but thanks for posting ;)