There are two interesting points, and also glaring inconsistencies in a careful reading of the paper by Roy, Rao, Kanzius: "Observations of polarized RF radiation catalysis of dissociation of H2ONaCl solutions"
http://www.rustumroy.com/Scans/Observations%20of%20polarized%20MRI%20vol%2012%20is%201.pdf Where the authors confirmed that RF short wave radiation causes NaCl solution in water to be "measurably changed in structure" and thereby to "permit" the dissociation of H2O into a burnable gas near room temperature. I believe that the wording "measurably changed in structure" was carefully chosen - most likely to indicate that the RF itself (the actual power input) did NOT accomplish the result of water splitting, at least not alone; and possibly that the electric field (near-field) of the salt ions themselves - in the solution, is the actual modality for the water splitting. I hope this this precise distinction as I have interpreted it - is both the authors intent and that it is accurate, as it speaks volumes about the importance of this experiment. Notice that there are no electrodes present of any kind- well- I should say no metal electrodes, since the salt ions themselves may become virtual electrodes. IOW the ultimate "power source" for this reaction is the natural "source" which allows salt to ionize in the first place! You may not have ever considered that to be a "source" since it is natural, This is essentially the set-up for an end run around the LoT. Is that modality of virtual natural ions ultimately connected to the ZPF? I say definitely YES! Filling-in the details of this situation would be interesting and worthy enough for a small book - but there are several other contributory inputs to the overall system which in fact could be major inputs. This simple device is far more complicated than meets the eye; and those other inputs are also probably not governed precisely by the LoT as we normally assume. IOW any gainfulness depends on inputs from "outside the local system" - the main input of interest being ZPE (as broadly defined to include the Casimir force). Before getting into that now, consider this further blip from the paper above: "The flame produced is a burning reaction, probably of an intimate mixture of hydrogen oxygen and the ambient air" and "the gaseous effluents are obviously different from those obtained from [DC] electrolysis as they are produced mixed in situ simultaneously. Hence, the burning of these effluent gases should not be compared precisely with the burning of molecular hydrogen in air or the molecular oxyhydrogen mixtures [i.e. Brown's gas] Of course, Roy is no fool and anyone with experience in these things can clearly see that the flame is NOT a hydrogen+oxygen flame, at least no wholly. But one almost suspects that he is overlooking the meaning of Figure 2A in the paper above - which shows the large sodium doublet emission line in the spectrum of the flame. This is a huge finding... but... Is he then out to lunch when- in the conclusion, he states "Most of the Na present in the solution, concentrates progressively as measured as the water is dissociated and burned." This cannot happen! I think his error here is that he must have measured the density of the remaining liquid, and finding it higher (as it should be with increased salt concentration) he assumed that the Na was concentrating- when in fact it was actually being diluted as a function of it burning in the flame - and what he was measuring as higher density was in fact the concentration of chlorite ions. These are higher density than NaCl. Why do I think that? Well the flame spectrum is the major reason, but also if he did measure the pH of the remaining liquid, he did not mention it, so I am assuming that was his big mistake. Had he measured pH he would have noticed that only the Na, and not the Cl was being expelled in the flame. At least that is my take on it thus far. Why such a big to-do over this? Stay tuned for Part III Jones
