The short answer is because it’s JUNK SCIENCE.
Putiing shackles on the rear end and lifting it should increase mileage since the car will be going down hill all the time… Right!
And the oil companies have bought off all the patents on fuel mileage devices like that 55 mpg 4 bbl that Pontiac had on their 389.
This hoax made headlines when gas prices were high. I have never seen or heard of an actual controlled experiment where there was a meaningful increase in fur mileage.
We flogged this one to death a few years back.
The short answer is because it's JUNK SCIENCE.
Well, the HHO generators are, but the playing playing card power inducers are REAL, I know, I used them for years ! !
It’s simple physics.
You cannot get more energy/power out of the something than the amount of energy/power that’s put in.
Tester
It doesn’t work…to increase mileage…because, like I said before…that tiny little Water Cracking device cannot produce enough gas to take over or replace the gasoline. Now take Hydrogen a MEGATON more and compress it into a gas cylinder…and you wont even need a gasoline tank…it will run…completely on Hydrogen.
Like I mentioned…this has just enough fact mixed with just enough fiction and cut with lack of information…to Bamboozle the masses. Here we go is right… Ha
Testers comment is also exactly correct… How many BTU’s are contained in a gallon of gasoline? Something like 115 Thousand? How many BTU’s of Hydrogen gas are you “making onboard” Answer…Very very few BTU’s… So it cant make an appreciable difference in the running of the vehicles engine.
Blackbird
But… but… how can I make MONEY from this???
I don’t know if my playing cards in my spokes as a kid helped, but I do know that my Vega accelerated faster after I put the spoiler on! 
ever since I installed those solar panels on my truck cap it s been smooth sailing…
couldn t regenerative braking or using the wheels as generators while rolling somehow make it feasible?
not that I want hydrogen in my vehicle, just sayin"…
It seems like if that were economically feasible people would use it for their home heating in the winter; i.e. use electricity to create H2 and O2 gasses from water, then burn them in the home’s furnace for home heating requirements. But I’ve never heard of anybody doing this. At least never in a way that reduces the monthly utility bills.
HHO wont power a vehicle to any great degree,but it does make a nifty little torch(will actually melt granite)but alas it was like that carburetor the companies bought up and shelved.And those cat back systems that give you 10-15% more horsepower,not to mention the CAI systems that give you 10-15%(tried a super turbo muffler and CAI on the Dakota,only result,lighter wallet,the muffler rusted out and fell off after a couple of years)
yeah, I m think of generating the electricity for free. like solar panels and a small battery for storage,
…or a couple of small wind turbines mounted behind the grill or on the roof and a small battery for storage.
or just using the forward motion or the brakes of the vehicle to generate power…
Honda, George, the point is not the amount of H2 produced, it’s the energy cost to make if via electrolysis of water. That will always be higher than what you get from burning it. You could install a hugh alternator, hugh tanks, a burner fully integrated with the engine (if that’s possible at all) and you still would be operating at a loss.
I guess that’s why nobody uses this method to heat their home. From what you say, their electricity bill would go up more than they’d save on their natural gas bill.
KMC ? “Like those carburetors the companies bought up and shelved” THAT carburetor never saw the light of day…because supposedly…IT WORKED. The great part about that is that we will never know because we never got our hands on it to prove or disprove. So we bought that myth 100% whole.
CAT back systems WILL give you more power if you tune the fuel injection for the lower back pressure…and in the instance of a Turbo you don’t want excessive back pressure. So those theories DO pan out. Cold Air intakes also work for what problem they are supposed to try and solve…They can supply colder and thus denser Air and thus generate more power.
So I guess what I’m trying to ask is…What were you trying to say or make point of here? Everything you mentioned works much better than this Hydrogen system.
Blackbird
BillRussel… It is actually BOTH Bill… The amount of H2 is most certainly a major factor here…Unquestionably. Lets say these mobile crack units functioned off of our normal Alternators yet produced immense levels of H2 gas… THAT…would work. But it doesn’t because of the massive energy needed to produce the huge volume of h2 that is needed to be able to see an increase in Mpg. The power just isn’t available to make that much H2. If you did make that much H2…you would need to store it as well.
So I guess I should just say we are sort of both correct here.
Blackbird
Back when those hydrogen generators were first getting a lot of attention I saw one demonstrated and while I was doubtful that it offered any useable fuel to the engine there might be a benefit from water vapor being introduced when the ambient temperature was high and the engine was operating at the upper end of its power range. I knew an old mechanic who had been an arcraft mechanic in the Pacific who swore by vapor injection which helped control preignition.
@wesw the wind turbine wouldn’t work either. The energy to turn the blades comes from your car pushing against the air. Your car will have to push a little harder against the air to overcome the extra aerodynamic drag of the turbine blades. Once you account for system losses, the turbines will be an overall drain rather than a boost of energy. The closest you’ll get to free would be the solar panels, but even then you’d have to have them fully integrated with the car - i.e., flush-mounted so they don’t cause extra drag, and lighten the rest of the car to match the weight it was before you installed the panels, otherwise you’ll lower your fuel efficiency and defeat the purpose.
the main engines of the space shuttle use Hydrogen and Oxygen, when combined and ignited produce electricity and water/HHO is the reverse product, releasing the energy stored in water.
It’s very hard to convince someone who has never bothered to study this topic, much less, tried it.
Armchair debunkers are a dime a dozen, Orville and Wilbur Wright had some too saying : “If God wanted man to fly, then He would have given us wings.”
The benefits of HHO are many and I have found no adverse effects and have employed it for 5 years now. But I am not here to start a argument, in fact, it’s amusing to see these experts all condemn it.
The Law of Conservation of Energy says HHO generators won’t work but that won’t stop people from claiming otherwise. The Fish carburetor, magnets on the fuel line, mothballs in the gas tank and a bunch of other non-sense has been around for so long, no one knows how they started and they surely won’t die. You can see it most anywhere on the internet.
I think its partly a result of very poor science education in the schools.