The most simplistic explanation for a layman is that the disassociation
forces induced into the water by the microwave r.f. field is
essentially a.c. at a frequency that if the ions of water are
disassociated, the field reverses so quickly that the ions haven't time
to move away from each other and consequently recombine.
You can disassocate water using low frequency a.c. at say 60-Hz, but
then the cathode and anode are reversing positions at this 60-Hz rate,
creating a mix of hydrogen and oxygen at each terminal.
This is why nothing but d.c. is employed for the practical electrolysis
of water, simply because the anode and cathode remain fixed negating
the ion velocity in the electrolytic solution and allowing hydrogen to
collected at the cathode and oxygen at the anode.
For the more technically inclined reader, there have been experiments
done using r.f. frequencies to disassociate the water molecule, while
using a static electrical field to collect and separate them. IIRC, the
conclusion was that there was no net benefit over using simple
electrolysis because you're simply trading off Ohmic power loss for
microwave production power losses. Hence, if you want to separate water
into hydrogen and oxygen, simple d.c. driven electrolysis remains the
most efficient way to do the job.
Either way, splitting a water into it's constituent components is and
well defined in the literature. Above and beyond this is that you have
additionally provide for the losses associated with the specific method
that you are using.
Either way, you cannot produce more energy from hydrogen than that
which went into producing it, only vary the amount of energy that is
alway lost in the chosen process.
Hope this helps. Harry C.
