Hi Phil, that patent talks about the non-combustive gases argon and CO2 being added to dilute the hydroxy, which makes a lot more sense, but greatly complicates things. Meyer never speaks of anything along these lines.
Phil, you are wrong about the excess oxygen in air. Oxygen is only an oxidiser, and as we would already be producing a stoichiometric amount of 2H2 and O2 that would then react to create water, the oxygen in ambient air would pass through as exhaust gas too. So the oxygen in ambient air will not make a lot of difference, and the exhaust gases will consist of ambient air - primarily, 20% O2, 79% N2, 1% other and excess water vapour. There might be a small amount of oxygen that will react with the nitrogen to produce nitrogen monoxide, but as this requires temperatures in excess of 2000 degC, even in a combustion chamber this will likely only be a tiny amount.
That said, even if these recycled exhaust gases are fed back into the WFC system in a controlled manner at some stage before combustion they will have the same effect of diluting the hydroxy. So maybe there is some mileage in this approach of feeding back of gases.
Particularly with Meyer, and contrary to what some people will have you believe, I find there are a lot more questions than answers. And those people who do claim to have it all figured out and indeed have all the answers are really just kidding themselves, as in reality Meyer's science rarely adds up. That's not to say there is nothing worth pursuing here - I truly think there is, and indeed it's a passion of mine - but I'm certainly not naive enough to take Meyer's preaching as gospel, or for that matter blindly follow his - or anyones - version of science without question. It really does pay to keep and open mind, but it also pays to question everything.
lol, I've only been here for a few days and I already have a reputation of -2.
I'm sorry if some of you folks feel that I'm treading on your toes or being negative, but that is simply not the case. I'm not discouraging anyone to experiment, and I certainly have a greater grasp of science than many, so why the negatives? Is it that some of you feel threatened by an alternative perspective? Would either of you like to elaborate?
I'm finding the EPG fascinating, but I'm all about is getting to the truth, and sometimes this means cutting through the crap and clap-trap. I'm only sceptical because I can see the flaws and inconsistencies that evidently many of you can't. Furthermore, I think these issues should be highlighted and brought into discussion rather than simply left as accepted truths. Bad science is bad science, and it won't go away because you prefer to overlook it. Suspect science needs to be discussed, it needs to be disected and it needs to be evaluted for what it really is. C'mon, there's really no point in living in a fantasy world.