No amount of work will ever turn hydrogen into a clean energy source. It's an energy storage method, not an energy generation method. We don't have free hydrogen floating around our atmosphere or oceans; it must always essentially be "un-burned", by using as much energy as is released by burning it. Since there's always inefficiencies at both ends of the process, this always results in a net energy loss. (This is the reader's digest version. Let's keep it simple for the plebians.) The (badly translated) article in question is utter nonsense.

The only way I can think of to extract hydrogen and use it to end up with a net energy profit is to fuse it into higher elements, and I feel confident in saying that functional in-home fusion reactors might be a liiiiittle ways off in the future.

I'm hoping this is one of those "looks better in motion than in stills" games, or that this is an early alpha. Otherwise, I've got a bad feeling about this.

The naming scheme is actually not too complex.

A "D" at the end means digital.

All xxD, xxxD, and xxxxD bodies have ~16x24mm sensors.

EF-S lenses work on all xxxxD, xxxD, and xxD bodies. EF lenses work on every single EOS camera ever made.*

EOS xxxx is for the lowest-end bodies, mostly meant for beginners or the "soccer parent" crowd. There are tons of film bodies in this class, and the XS (the 1000D) is the first of the digitals.

EOS xxx is for bodies with the size, weight, and control layouts of the xxxx series, but most of the features and performance of the xx series. The Rebel Ti (film) and the Rebel XTi (digital) fit into this category.

EOS xx is for heavyweight advanced amateur bodies, such as the film Elan series and the digital 40D.

EOS x (except for the 1's) vary wildly in features, but all are meant for high-end "semi-pro" use of some kind. The 5D is a xxD class camera with a ~24x36mm sensor; the 3 is a rugged and fast film body; the 5 is "poor man's 3"; almost as fast, almost as rugged, but good enough for many professional situations.

EOS 1 cameras are the professional bodies; extremely rugged, fast and reliable. They're the kind of cameras you take into warzones or hurricanes. If it has "Ds" at the end it means it has a ~24x36mm full-frame digital sensor (the "s" stands for studio); "D" on its' own means a ~28x19mm sensor. Anything else is a film camera (1, 1N, 1V).

( *The old manual-focus-only EF-M film body is the sole body exception, but you'll never run into it in real life. )

The XS is a major disappointment for those of us who want a compact camera with good raw performance. My 3-year-old Rebel XT, with 6 shots at 3fps in raw, is better than this new camera which has a top rate of 5 shots at 1.5fps. Even the original Digital Rebel almost matches this "latest, greatest" body with its 4 shots at 1.5fps.

Canon clearly has a good engineering staff, so I'm forced to conclude that they're deliberately crippling their compact cameras (as with Nikon and the lack of in-body autofocus motors in the D40/D60 series, and artificially crippled light metering in the entire Dxx range) to push sales of the bigger bodies.

And no, I am not going to switch to a xxD-class body. They are too big and too heavy. A decent raw buffer is just a RAM and firmware upgrade away, neither of which takes up any more physical space, and both of which are dirt cheap these days. There is no need or excuse for this gutting of features, except in the minds of bean counters and marketing suits.