In my mind this is already a perfect solution. Hell, if you can get it to burn, it is fuel. Period.

If it was a self-sustaining process, sure. The process described requires a continuous input of energy in the form of radio waves. The seawater would only be 'fuel' if you're getting out more energy than you're putting in.

A similar process has been done for years, using electricity instead of radio input. You apply a current to water that contains some ions (to conduct the charge.... highly pure water is actually an insulator), and produce the same reaction described by this guy-- water in, hydrogen and oxygen gas out. The fuel value of the hydrogen is generally about half the energy you put in-- useless as an energy source, but useful in the sense that it converts grid electricity into something portable. If you had cheap, plentiful low-pollution grid energy (fission or solar at present, fusion down the road), hydrogen solves the other half of the enegy problem-- portable, non-polluting energy.

Now, it's possible that he may have made the process somewhat more efficient than electrolysis, but until someone measures the numbers there's no way to know. I'm suspicious of the fact that as of now, the only news stories I can find on this are general media outlets-- the science-y news sources seem to be ignoring it. Plus, this same guy claimed about a month ago that he invented a cancer treatment... he might just be a crackpot.

Maybe not, of course, but we'll see what he can publish and what other people can reproduce and verify. Peer review is a rough process.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com