Seems to me that this whole thing is advising that we go back to steam, as a hoax or a scam. Sure, steam wouldn’t be a harmful pollutant, but you still have to burn things to produce it, and it still isn’t nearly as efficient as internal combustion engines.
Hmmmm. . .no, it doesn’t look like they’re trying to push steam power (which, by the way, isn’t necessarily inefficient or outdated; nuclear reactors are essentially steam engines that just “burn” radioisotopes instead of wood). If you used their technique for powering a motor or generator, the water isn’t the motive force, it just provides the hydrogen and oxygen as fuel. The burning of the fuel is what provides the motive force, by combusting. So really, it is an internal combustion engine. It’s just probably not one that will be all that efficient overall, because it depends on electrolysis. Electrolysis of water to provide fuel is nothing new, and it does work. But it always needs more energy than it gives in the end.
So as far as I can tell, yes, this process they describe will probably work. But no, it won’t be of much benefit, because it wouldn’t be very efficient. It would be like using a 200-watt light bulb that only puts out the light of a 20-watt one. And while it may not produce any harmful pollutants where the device itself is being used, there is still the burning of fossil fuels or the use of nuclear materials at some power plant somewhere to produce all the energy needed for the electrolysis.