Sadly, CNN isn’t as credible a news source as you’d think.

Besides, read through his site.  He’s just making it up as he goes along.  Most of his ‘facts’ don’t even make sense.

Okay, I looked around and found these two sites:  The diagram attached is from the second site.  I have no idea how these two processes match with the one in question.

http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/home/make-fire-from-water-116027.php
August 5, 2005: 
Make Fire From Water
OMGWTFLOL. Wow. Just… Wow. This Aqueon fireplace by Heat & Glo actually uses regular water to create fire. Ordinary tap water (preferably distilled) is supplied to the fireplace through a pipe or tank, a 220 volt electrical service then separates the hydrogen and oxygen atoms through electrolysis, the Aqueon ignites the hydrogen, and ta-dah, fire! The oxygen is then added for color and brightness, while the rest is released into the room. It doesn’t require venting because it doesn’t produce any harmful emittents like carbon monoxide

I guess the whole thing can be summed up by saying that we certainly aren’t currently using water for fuel and it looks like it is not a real viable source of energy

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.

Citizen Premier - 12 August 2006 08:50 PM

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 .no, it doesn’t look like they’re trying to push steam power (which, by the way, isn’t necessarily inefficient or outdated; nuclear reactors are essentially steam engines that just “burn” radioisotopes instead of wood).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.

Ah, I thought this was more of a joke or a scam, which made me think they were pushing a mostly-archaic form of power.

Good point about the electolysis, though; I remember reading a comic about how electric cars will solve all our problems, “because they run on electricity, and everyone knows electricity comes from magic!”