I'm a physicist, and so trained to be deeply skeptical of such claims. From reading the article, here's what I can say off the top of my head:

-It doesn't look like pure bunk
-it looks like he's using an electric energy source of some description (Battery/solar... what was up with the carbon rods wasn't immediately obvious to me at first glance) to crack water apart into hydrogen and oxygen
-the hydrogen will then undergo combustion in a modified gas or diesel engine to provide normal make-the-car-go energy

I've got a buddy at work who is nuts about hydrogen-pumping his cars fuel mixture to get more power, and what I've talked to him about seems to apply here:

Hydrogen isn't free energy (so the perpetual-motion machine folks can sit tight for a little while), it's simply a very efficient form of storing chemical energy. If we're looking at the hydrogen power versus, for instance, battery-powered or solar-powered electric vehicles, there IS going to be a difference in performance. Electric motors aren't very efficient, combustion motors aren't very efficient either - but they may be an order of magnitude difference or so. What this means is that you can use a solar panel to drive an electric car and go slow-but-steady for as long as the sun will shine... or you can use that same solar panel to crack water into hydrogen and oxygen, and then burn the hydrogen in a modified car engine, and get a lot further a lot faster. The amount of energy you collect in one hour on the soar cell is finite, and as such the distance you can drive an electric car on that one hour of charge is finite, and the amount of hydrogen you can get out of it is also finite... but the hydrogen option is likely to get you further before you run out of gas.

For a comparison of efficiency, bear this in mind... when you are filling up your car's gas tank with normal unleaded gasoline at the pump, the flux of chemical energy flowing through the hose into your car - as calculated by the amount of energy you'd get if you broke every single one of each molecule's bonds and ended up with a whole lot of individual atoms - that total energy flux is approximately equal to the amount of mechanical energy flowing over Niagra Falls. One second of fuel through the pump nozzle is equivalent to one second of thunderous torrents of water plunging hundreds of feet over the falls. Amazing concept, isn't it? But your car doesn't have quite that much power to it, right? The problem is that when your car is running on that gasoline, it only breaks a really tiny number of those chemical bonds - and the low-energy ones, at that - so your car only makes use of an incredibly small amount of the power available to it in the fuel tank.

Burning hydrogen is tremendously more efficient, at least as turning chemical energy into thermal energy. A car's engine is, at best, about 35% efficient at turning thermal energy into mechanical energy, usually much worse than that. But you can see why the hydrogen idea seems too good to be true - it's WAY better than some of the other options available right now.

Hydrogen vehicles have other issues, though, mainly having to do with fuel storage. You can create your own - but i don't know how long that would last you. I don't know if the hydrogen you can make in one sunny day will last you an overnight drive. You can find someplace to fill up your hydrogen tank - but then you're a hazmat, and can't drive over bridges or through tunnels. Lots of challenges to be overcome, no matter what transportation method you go with. And then there's the expense and propaganda issues of changing the mindset of a country that has been single-tracked on a petroleum mentality for over a hundred years, and a government with one or two ties to an oil-based global economy... Oh, wait, I meant Democracy, not oil. heh. My bad.

I don't understand why so many people feel that a hydrogen vehicle would be more dangerous. As opposed to a gasoline powered car, with a twenty gallon tank of 90 octane? Hydrogen can explode, I know, but so does gas. And i doubt you'll be dealing with big tankers of hydrogen on the roads like you do with gasoline anyway. Once they figure out an efficient way to make it, refineries and centralized production will be a thing of the past with fuel. Frankly I'd rather deal with a hydrogen explosion than a gasoline one anyway, from a hazmat point of view. Even after gasoline has burned there are still hazardous residues and such.

I thought I read in one of the articles ( I think there's three of them) that the carbon rod was nothing special.
http://maxlindberg.greenoptions.com/2007/05/21/the-perfect-hydrogen-vacation/

QUOTE:
The only thing you’ll change are some non-lethal carbon rods, about once a year. They’ll cost somewhere in the range of what you’d pay for gasoline in one month of driving.

The solar panel and battery's are probably there to start it up. I would think if you have enough power out of the engine to run the car you could easily hook up an alternator to it and get more power out of it than a solar panel.

Plasma Globes :-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_globe

Just the act of creating plasma doesn't require a tremendous amount of energy - just a lot of voltage. You can have almost no energy at several thousand volts and create a tiny plasma ball. in fact, that's exactly what happens every time you scuff your feet on the carpet and then zap yourself on a doorknob or your car or a metal railing - that little blue spark is a plasma state of air, when the electricity flowing through it rips it apart into its component atoms, and even rips the electrons from the atoms in a fully ionized state. Now, the spark isn't sustained in that case, and everything goes back to "normal" pretty fast... but in the right environment, hydrogen can be convinced not to recombine with oxygen. It sounds like the carbon rods are just that - rods of carbon - chances are that they're being used as a catalyst. Electrodes of the right metals can decrease the amount of energy required to crack the water into H2 and O2, simply because of those metals' affinities for the elemental gasses themselves.

As for the low-pressure low-volume storage tank of hydrogen being constantly produced - definitely avoids the distribution infrastructure problems as you mentioned. But as Rob said, it's not very easy to produce hydrogen - well, it's easy, but it takes a lot of energy - so the rate at which you can produce the hydrogen given the inner workings of your vehicle may then become the problem. Your electrical system (sans solar) can produce X liters of H2 @ STP per hour, and your driving is consuming 3X in the same time... So you ahve an extra bank of batteries that you can "turn into hydrogen" when needed, but then there's the recharge problems. It's all fascinating stuff, and I have no doubt it (or something like it) will some day save our petroleum-dependent butts.

Well, yes, solar panels (or any renewable energy method) is a good way to do it, since you're using a clean and unlimited resource and once the upfront costs are paid, it gets pretty affordable. Still, it's terribly inefficient, since you are converting sunlight, to electric, to hydrogen, to electric, and finally to propulsion. And that doesn't include the energy necessary to compress the hydrogen for storage.

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of an onboard electrolyzer as a supplemental, use-on-demand application to increase gasoline mileage. I said before that I kicked around making my own and see how well it's works. (there is some care required to preventing over-temp combustion, and damaging your engine though) I also would love nothing more than to say goodbye to oil. We're not there yet, but hopefully sometime in my lifetime, it will happen.

Using radio waves to break the hydrogen-oxygen bond in saltwater.
This ones been in the news for a few months.

http://www.goerie.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071121/NEWS02/711210389

"A few experiments later, Kanzius was burning saltwater at about 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit by using 200 watts' worth of directed radio waves"

Ahhhh... But this is an update on that article. :-)

While I don't agree with any of your thoughts on hydrogen, I do support your views of electric powered vehicles.

First, I'll explain my differences with your views. Hydrogen is relatively safe. Not sure why people are so adamant to think otherwise. When contained in a vessel, it's inert, since an oxidizer is required to make it burn/explode. I'd say there's about the same risk than that of Liquid Petroleum (propane) since it's compressed to a liquid state, and upon failure of a vessel, it expands by a factor of 270 times when exposed to the atmosphere, (hydrogen compressed to 5000 psi expands to 333 times) though, propane is used regularly to power internal combustion machinery for years without worries. A gasoline tank is probably even more dangerous than either, since it is exposed to an oxidizer, and is the most likely to combust. They could easily be made incredibly safer by simply converting to a ventless bladder system, but you don't see anyone panicking to do so. Why? Because the risk is low. Even lower for hydrogen. But it's "new" and people fear what they don't understand.

Alright, next. A hydrogen engine and filling stations argument. Wind the clock back about 120 years. There were no gasoline internal combustion engine vehicles around, not even to mention gas stations showing up well into the start of the 20th century. Should the development of such technology been ignored back then, as you're suggesting of hydrogen power now? That seems pretty ridiculous. I believe California does have a few hydrogen filling stations in limited areas. There was a time when there were only a few gasoline stations not all that long ago. And for hydrogen engines, built as an internal combustion, piston and crank arrangement, now that would be dumb. That truly is ancient technology. But most hydrogen powered vehicles don't use that method. They are electric vehicles, via a fuel cell conversion process. The only reason it's not popular (yet) is the same with any new technology. It's presently expensive to produce. Hydrogen's only true setback right now, still remains to be production efficiency. Once that hurdle is licked, we're on the fast track to a new era.

So what do we got today? Hybrids, an electric and IC traction vehicle which is terribly inefficient considering their performance. Heck, Germany is coming out with a plain, old diesel IC engine, four-seat car that get 150 MPG, so why do hybrids only get 60~70 MPG? Far superior is what the railroads have long well known. Diesel generated, electric traction drive. With a much smaller battery bank, and electric traction only arrangement, you end up with a more efficient vehicle, both fuel economy-wise, and consumable materials maintenance-wise. So why is it ignored for lesser efficient vehicle designs? Why won't Germany's 150 MPG car be marketed here in the USA? I bet you know the answer.

As long as oil is profitable, expect to remain under the thumb of it, as far as the government is concerned. Why enforce high efficiency standards when oil stocks are soaring and profits are flowing like a mighty flood?

My comments are about the next 10 to 20 years...

"Hydrogen is relatively safe."
I do understand H2. Have you ever seen a H2 fire... Well that's a trick question, because you can't see a H2 fire... Remember the Hindenburg... I have lost some facial hair because of h2 and my truck battery... One rule that one must remember about compressed gas is - every tank leaks all the time... That's right, the higher the pressure the quicker that little sucker leaks... There are big problems to overcome... The only good thing about H2 is it is so light it will dissipate rapidly... fuel cell conversion process or striping off electrons has problems of their own.

" I believe California does have a few hydrogen filling stations in limited areas." "Hydrogen's only true setback right now, still remains to be production efficiency. Once that hurdle is licked, we're on the fast track to a new era."
Agreed, but we ain't there yet... Which is why I want something that will work NOW!!!! Remember, I'm old...

California, had 5000 electric and hybrid cars... They destroyed 4000 of then and only because of a protests were 1000 of the saved...
I will never see another movie by their creepy governator...

I believe a hybrid Bio- Diesel will eventually be the vehicle that will last until H2 or something else that is really efficient comes on line... If I had a elecrric car that had a range of 120 miles, I would use almost no gas...
Remember, 100+ MPG is achievable NOW. The US average MPH is about 15 to 20 MPH... and gas is $3.00 a gallon. If the average went to 50 MPH (which is very achievable NOW) the price of gas would be much lower... and we would be using our own energy...
Dave