SNiP since every unit tested under laboratory conditions has resulted in either zero or a negative net increase in efficiency. SNIP As would be expected by someone with no personal experience, an impossible absolute is "used" to "defend" what they are saying, but instead, ends up with a scientifically negative affect n their theoretical position.
"Every unit tested under laboratory conditions" sounds great - but I would venture to say this statement is something I doubt you can actually back up with solid, factual evidence since it is impossible that you, yourself, could ever have personally witnessed every unit ever tested.
It also becomes abundantly clear after many years of dealing with people vs science, that the person who allows emotions to dictate their thinking those who will make such absolute statements since they have nothing else to go on.
Never will hypothetical absolutes without hands-on experience lead to anything but future mistakes which will waste others' time.
The main argument behind this problem is always someone saying you are getting more energy out of the system than you are putting in. This is a fallacy as shown by the example of an avalanche. A release of potential energy is a commonplace thing in machinery.
Another example is that the force of a gun's hammer hitting the primer releases a whole lot more energy than that of the spring which powered the trigger. If people mis-applying the laws of physics were around when the gun was being developed, their argument would have been similar to yours,,,"Well youy cannot get more power out of the bullet that the force setting it off - so the concept of a gun will not work." Transfer this concept to bows and arrows etc.
The release of potential energy by a smaller force is easily within the limits of the laws that govern science. Under the hood, a current from the alternator splits apart a molecule that produces burnable components. These components are fred into a combustion chamber along with gasoline and you end up with the laws of physics/chemistry taking over. You have not added energy, you have added burnable gases.
... the pull of the trigger releases the hammer to hit the primer of the case containing the (potential energy changed to kinetic) of the chemicals within.
.... the muscles of the man pull back the bowstring and the resulting impact of the resistance to pull of the bow (potential energy changes to kinetic) increases the penetration ability of the arrow.
... A skier yells and sets off an avalanche (potential energy in the weight of the snow changes to kinetic) that totally wipes out the forest below on the mountain
...... A person pulls back the pouch on a slingshot (potential energy in the bands) and ends up hurling a rock much farther than he could have thrown it.
... the thrower of the spear utilizes an atlatl to greatly increase the distance and power the spear will have on impact. This is energy increase due to properties of levers. It is not breaking any laws, it is factual, and yet would appear to some that there is free energy being created b/c the man could never throw a spear this far and hard without the atlatl.
... The car's alternator supplies current to break up a molecule. The resulting elements are very flammable (potential energy changed to kinetic), so they are fed into a combustion chamber. And b/c someone with only theoretical knowledge misunderstands the situation, the gases fail to combust b/c the theory-only naysayers dictate the gases are not aloud to follow the laws of physics/chemistry and ignite.
Until you have hands on experience, and can do it with a totally objective mindset - as in wanting to find the truth vs wanting to prove something, please understand that this kind of response, thinking, is what hinders factual science utilizing the scientific method.
All true science, based on the very definition of the word, is based on observation. You have none, yet are dead sure you know the facts. By definition, your conclusions cannot be scientific and only theoretical.
I have used a system like this in the past. I am planning on putting it on the car I am getting as a secondary car this coming Saturday (an old Caprice). You can theorize all you want to while I am enjoying the extra cash in my pocket.
Until you can give some solid, personal, scientific evidence - instead of reading what is on the internet and apparently missing the actual science behind the process, your position remains theoretical only.
BTW - as to why these are not being sold - take a look on ebay. There is one seller that has similar system, has been selling a long time, directs you to a forum where you can go to discuss the system being installed on the specific make of their own vehicles, offers money back guarantee, and is still going strong.
One of the main problems behind a system like this is that most people are programmed into thinking they cannot do anything for themselves or seem too lazy to do so. I used to tell people and show them my system. They were impressed, but only 3 out of many ever decided to do it for themselves (and saved money doing it). Welcome to the 21st century where the reality is that the majority of people would rather pay someone else to do things for them.
Also, in the State of PA where I live, it is law to have your car inspected every year. The inspection laws say that the car must be powered by electric or an internal combustion engine and the inspectors are not allowed to pass a car with a fuel mileage enhancing device on it. I always had to take mine off to get it inspected. It is not illegal to have one, but it is illegal to install them for someone else and the people doing state inspections are not allowed to pass the car if one is present.
BTW - do not believe me on this please - check out the PA state inspection laws yourself.