and you can prove this how?
You’re asking him to prove a negative. The question is: how could it be made feasible?
It would depend on what in the salt water is being burned. If the chemical reation is H2O —RF energy—> H2 + O2 —combustion—> H2O, then the RF generator would consume more energy than is liberated by burning hydrogen. On the other hand, if there something else in the salt water that is burning, then it is possible, in theory, for a net energy gain.
If you have to ask, then you probably wouldn’t understand the answer.
But, here’s a simplified version.
Basically it has to do with the FACT that NO energy transformation is 100% efficient. Not only IS not, but CANNOT be. So you take natural gas and burn it, converting one form of potential energy, (chemical) and turn it into another (heat) and lose in the process, then you take that heat and turn a turbine, converting the heat energy to mechanical energy losing more, than you use that mechanical energy to turn a generator making electircal energy losing more yet again, then use the electricity to generate radiant energy (radio waves) losing yet more, which you use to pull hydrogen out of the water losing even more. You are losing energy at every turn (at least six transformations by my count).
My advice is to buy a cylinder of natural gas and save yourself a heap of capital investment, headache and hardship - all to accomplish less than nothing.
When hydrogen is oxidized heat is released as the molecules
of 2 H2O (water) has less Gibbs Free Energy than a molecules of 2 H2 and O2
2H2 +02 = 2 H2O +release of energy as heat. To break the bond between the Oxygen and Hydrogen will require the same amount of energy as was released in the original reaction. That is if you were 100% efficient, which the process can not be. There “aint nothing” for free in thermodynamics and chemical reactions.
This whole idea is crap.