HHO on demand math, please set me straight (xls attached for you to play with)

[Cloxxki]

Dear HHO fans,

Is there a list being kept updated for various styles of bubblers and katalyst combinations regarding their actual efficiency at producing HHO like gasses from water like liquids?
And for engines running on HHO-style fuels only this would be just as important.

I'd be interested to learn which is currently documented as the most efficient (fewest energy units required) at for instance making 1 kg (20ºC) of HHO. I don't care if it's using a recycled katalyst, uses up salt water, as long as the main fuel is water-like in that it's available for free, and the combustion produces clean exhaust fumes.

I ask, bacuase I am a fan of Tommey Reed's rotary pistion and ratchet engines, which look promising in reaching 80% or better efficiency in turning combusting/detonating fuel into shaft torque. If no bubbler does better than 110% of theoretical output though, we're not getting anywhere on water fuel just yet.

Logic distates that increased engine efficiency is a vital component towards creating a looped HHO on demand system.
Current petrol engines are like 30% efficient?

Exaggerated example as I'm trying to understand the HHO on demand principle:

Let's say a new combustion engine is 90% efficient, and this does look plausible to me.
I'll also presume a 90% efficient generator to produce electricity from physical input.
A 100kW input HHO production bubbler or similar device producing 200kW's theoretical combustion output HHO's worth, would then be able to continiously run a 180kW output combustion engine. Only 69kW is left for useful work (power a family car), as 111kW is required to produce a new supply of 100kW of electricity for the bubbler, to loop the whole process.

I'll try to attach a simple Excel spread I just did, for 3 vastly different HHO on demand system / engine combinations, all netting 69kW going towards the wheels of our family car.

In my example per above I started with 100kW in and 90% back (HHO to Kinetic) and 90% forth (generator) efficiency, which left me with ~69% useful return from 100kW invested.
Lower this to 20% back (HHO to Kinetic, imperfect current engine) and 90% forth (same generator), you need a 900% efficient bubbler to get the same acceptable output for the car to run. Or twice as big a bubbler (at least for input) at 728% efficiency and exactly twice the fuel consumption.

So, which technology is now (claiming to be) leading in this?

Please offer any numbers you've found documented, and correct mine or even my reasoning where wrong, or missing further key parameters. I really want this to be clear, and may write a little "HHO on demand for dummies" down the line.

I am hopeful that even without getting to the bottom of the Meyer's possibly 100% succesful technology, perhaps already today someone has an efficient bubbler which mated to a new efficient engine could be self-running, using only the water as fuel. I know Tommey reed is hoping to reach this, but I would not want the world to be dependent of just one man to address the engine part of things.

Thanks for your valueble time.

Greeting you from The Netherlands,

J