Plug in hydrogen hybrid
 

I have been recently introduced to the world changing idea of hydrogen boosting vehicles for improved power and mileage. But within a couple hours I realized that you can't take water, convert it to hydrogen and oxygen, burn it, move the vehicle, and have enough power left over to generate more hydrogen.
I was wondering if it would be worthwhile to use a separate plug in battery bank to run a "Hydrogen Boost" system. I know this would not be as efficient as a plug in electric/hybrid, but it would be a low cost alternative.

What Are your thoughts?

I think your noob bubble will be burst if/when you actually look into it.

You'd still need to charge those batteries.
As with the HHO systems, converting energies means you'll lose energy along the way.

The easiest way would be to carry H2 gas containers, and inject the gas into the intake. Even then you'll be faced with hydrogen's lousy volume / power ratio.

The route that you would see the largest return would be to skip the hydrogen all together and take a smaller number of batteries and use them to run the electrical loads on your vehicle without an alternator being hooked up.
I don't see why people call them hydrogen generators... they should be called hydrogen heaters because you make more heat then anything else, the split water is almost a byproduct.
But my first point is, it takes so much energy to split water that the battery bank you are going to need is going to be larger then the battery bank you will need to go the same number of miles using a set of deep cycle batteries instead of having your alternator hooked up, you can bench test this your self and get your own numbers then compare it to how many amps your alternator puts out under a given load.

The better question would be to ask is:
What is the cheapest most efficient feed stock to make hydrogen from?
That would be natural gas. Take the natural gas and let it break down into hydrogen in side the combustion chamber of your engine. Problem solved, range extended.
"Even then you'll be faced with hydrogen's lousy volume / power ratio".
Don't for get the high cost of hydrogen.

"I realized that you can't take water, convert it to hydrogen and oxygen, burn it, move the vehicle, and have enough power left over to generate more hydrogen".
Its called the first and second laws of thermodynamics and some guys over in europe figured it out around the 1860s.
The first law (and how it obeys the conservation of energy) shows why you cant have Perpetual motion machines and the second law (Carnot thermodynamic theorem) details the efficiency of heat engines.

Balance that with burning natural gas in an engine. I don't know how the energy inputs vs. outputs break down, but I'll bet there is little to no advantage to making hydrogen from natural gas over direct combustion.

The full cycle depends on a lot of factors, but might be under 20%. The fuel cell itself is more efficient than an IC engine, the problem is all the upstream losses converting the natural gas to H2, and storing & transporting it.

I'd think it would be far simpler just to design a fuel cell that runs on natural gas (or even on something like sugar), but no, "hydrogen is the FUTURE!".

PS: Or a fuel cell that runs on high fructose corn syrup, then we could stop contaminating the food supply with that stuff.

I already looked into it, back in 2006. Whats the logic behind burning off about 20% of the energy in the base fuel, releasing the CO2, making an easy to handle gas into a difficult to handle gas and increasing the price per BTU about a dozen times?
Natural gas makes an all around better motor fuel than Hydrogen hands down.
One of the claims I have herd for why we dont use hydrogen as a motive fuel is "there is no large scale production". Nothing could be further from the truth. In the US alone we produce millions of pounds of pounds of hydrogen every year for use in ammonia production and petrochemical operations.

"they should be called hydrogen heaters because you make more heat then anything else, the split water is almost a byproduct".
I do like that statement. It sums up the subject in question pretty well.

I'll tell you what the logic is: The same companies get to sell you energy at a higher price. Yeah, from my perspective, there are far better alternatives than hydrogen anything.

Every thing is better than hydrogen, even gas at $7/gal.