The two different inventions discussed are two completely different cases.
The first one, the magnetic free energy machine, doesn't seem to be able to work based on a quick search of problems in general with these kind of free energy machine. I'm not going to bother to post them, because it's too easy to find. And they don't matter that much anyway. If some guy has figured out how to do something that goes against the laws of thermodynamics, more power to him. Given the search results I mention that talk about the problems people have who sincerely think they've invented something but don't actually produce anything, I think they are mistaken.
The second one, the guy who figured out how to burn salt water, is a different kind of case. The radio field lighting up a florescent bulb is a well-known phenomenon. As a practical issue, it is more efficient in many ways, and problably safer as well, to run electricity through copper wires to a converter that let's a tiny amount of electricity directly to the bulb in place of projecting radio waves by running a lot of power through a series of circuits to turn electricity into radio waves to light a bulb...
But that isn't the cool thing. You're right, that one is pretty cool. He figured out a way to separate the oxygen and hydrogen atoms from the molecules in the water. We've known how to do that for some time. Electrolysis, I believe, was discovered sometime int he early 1800s.
The big question is - is the amount of energy used to generate the radio waves less than is used in other methods of separating watrer into its separate components.
The guy showed a hot flame being produced. It was being produced by generating radio waves that acted in a chemical fashion with the salt to allow the oxygen and hydrogen molecules to separate. Those gases can be ignited directly and certainly burn. But the salt water itself is not burning, and the flame will extinguish when the radio waves go off.
Since the radio waves were produced by modulating electricty and generating waves, can the flame produce enough power to generae a sizeable amount of power itself, say with a turbine generator?
It could be that the savings in energy used to produce the gases is vastly superior to other methods in terms of energy cost, I don't know - I admit I didn't look any farther. But if it is, I guarantee that this little baby will be a money maker and he better get it patented real quick.
However, one thing to remember. You still have to generate power to generate power and there WILL be a net loss. TANSTAAFL. There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. The laws of thermodynamics tell us that entropy gets us all, unless we find some way to tap into another universe and suck up their energy instead of ours.
So what an invention like that may do is cause a rise in efficiency to produce energy (still at a net loss, remember, but much cheaper) to where it would be cheaper to power cars and machinery. To what degree depends on just how cheap the power charge is to separate out those atoms to begin with.
Of course - how long would it take to change over to a new fuel source like that? They would need to be partialy electric with a radio generator, so you'd need a good battery and still have to charge it. A charge may last you a thousand miles now instead of a couple of hundred or so and thereby could make the whole electric car hybrid industry (with a different type of hybrid than previously imagined) a going concern worth billions. But it would still take time to get there.
Actually, it's more likely to be used as the key technology that produces a hydrogen-based energy economy instead of petroleum.
