There's a difference in ambient pressure between the top and bottom. That's needed to make bouyancy work. So you're using more electric energy creating HHO at the bottom than you would at the top. But you're using it at the top. So ignoring the energy taken from bouyancy, you'd use less energy generating it at the top where it's used. After you recover some of it from bouyancy, it probably gets back towards even, as if you'd done nothing.
It doesn't matter how popular these things are on the internet, none of them have been shown to actually work. Maybe because they don't work, or maybe because the people writing the websites don't appreciate the magnitude of their claims, so they don't bother providing the much stronger evidence they need to persuade anyone. The only way is to demonstrate a working model in real life. Not on the internet, but in your own garage, or in a lab, to real people, and allow them to test whatever they like - at your expense.
Remember there have been millions of small improvements to the efficiency of engines, generators, etc. But despite these improvements, not one machine has ever been shown to violate the laws of thermodynamics in even the tiniest way. You're saying you can make similar little tweaks, but your tweaks will somehow violate the laws of thermodynamics. Don't think nobody's tried bouyancy on a water wheel, or a conveyor instead of a wheel. Even the motor->generator->HHO->motor loop has of course been attempted many times, with no known successes. These kinds of ideas are as old as the hills and have never ever been shown to do anything inconsistent with our current theories, let alone the larger deviations required for perpetual motion.
You're worried somebody will get shot if they patent such a thing??!!?! After it's patented the cat's out of the bag. Nobody can put the cork back in. That's just an unfounded excuse.
The only useful tool to combat negative comments about HHO is a WORKING MODEL!! But somehow nobody can quite manage to do more than talk about it.
