One could surround it with a chicken wire cage for bird safety but in CA it would just be an act of charity or green conscience to buy it. Under CA law, one's local utility company can bill one for any electricity that one self-generates just as if they had provided it (with the sole exception of solar.) It took a referendum to get solar exempted from this "utility slavery" provision of the law, and it will take another to exempt wind. The "utility slavery" provision was part of the so-called "energy deregulation" gift to the utilities that led to the fake CA energy crisis, facilitated the Enron bilking of CA ratepayers, etc., etc.

From the website: "the unit actually provides "Brown’s Gas," a combination of hydrogen, oxygen and water vapor that is inhaled by an engine's intake system." yet somehow it provides no water/water vapor to the system? I suspect that it does.

The focus should be on what they do, not on their theory - the falsehood of the phlogiston theory didn't mean that the events ascribed to it didn't occur. If you build and properly install a water or water vapor injector and run two electrodes into it, the odds are that there will be some increase in mileage or power. If you call it a "Brown's Gas Hydroxy Generator" or somesuch, that won't really change things. It certainly won't make it "nothing like" a water or water vapor injector.

Timat says that this is nothing like water injection, but that is not correct. They do not claim to inject pure hydrogen and oxygen, but to inject a mixture of hydrogen, oxygen, water vapor and water. Regardless of why they say it works, if they lean the mix and advance the timing as part of the installation tweaks, then they are, in part, water injecting. Ergo, one can't say it can't work on purely theoretical grounds, because water injection does work.

Likewise one cannot hang a theory of why this cannot work on undetectable, immeasurable effects, or what happens with the engine off. The simple "no free lunch" argument was used to "prove" turbo chargers cannot work and failed there for the same reason, it assumes perfect efficiency of the automotive system.

In the classic configuration, you have an engine with a lot of belt driven junk hung off it, including an alternator. The alternator rpm is totally decoupled from the electrical load on it in all but contrived extreme situations. this means that there is no theoretical bar to increasing that load without further loading the engine to an extent which would impact net power delivery to the ground. (Drive for a month with the radio on when driving, and then for a month with the radio off when driving and compare your mileage. Now do it using an inverter and slow charger to charge gobs of AA batteries. You will see no effect on mileage, but you will have "free" energy which could hydrolize water which could be used to augment fuel. )

In the end, this type of technology requires empirical testing, not dismissal based on inapplicable "no free lunch" arguments, especially since water injection is part of the package, whether advertised as such or not.

Waitaminit! Think it through remembering that automobiles are terribly inefficient. There is a good likelihood of some net gain for a well designed and implemented device of this type, though probably not the magnitude mentioned.

First - forget the electrolytic aspects and you have a crude water/water vapor injector. These are old news and old tech, also, proven tech - they work. There are negative trade-offs such as increased long-term engine damage, but they work and are an old school hack for goosing clunkers not otherwise expected to have a long life. They require additional tweaks such as advancing the timing and leaning out the mix, and reduce emissions to boot.

Second - real auto subsystems are inefficient and poorly coupled. (There is a ton of waste heat, for example, remember, turbo chargers work, using "free energy"; "free" because it is otherwise "waste energy".) Sure, if you jump a dead battery you can generally hear the rpms drop, but if you plug a small map light into the lighter, there is no effect. Because of the existing inefficiencies, you can add a certain small amount of additional load to the electrical system without adding a fully compensating additional load to the engine, let alone to the wheels. If you can get enough free juice out of your system to electrolyze water and thereby add some free 2(H2+O2) to the water injection, you will get an additional "free" power boost.

I would expect the combined effect to be small, and to be efficacious in proportion to the clunkiness of the car -- more benefit from a 60's era pick-up than a 2008 sub-compact, but the technology cannot be simply dismissed - the benefit (or absence of benefit) of each application of each implementation on each vehicle has to be empirically determined.