Three Streams

There are two different plugs in this archive and they are routinely confused.

The gas injection system has a water fuel cell somewhere else. It makes hydrogen and oxygen at its own pace, and that gas is metered into the intake manifold with ionized air and recycled exhaust. That is the Gas Processor material, and figure 3-31.

The water fuel injector is a different thing entirely: a spark-plug-sized unit screwed into the head that receives liquid water and has to atomise it, dissociate it and light it inside itself. Meyer's own description in Water Fuel Injection System could not be plainer:

the present invention is a microminiatureized water fuel cell and permits the direct injection of water, and its simultaneous transformation into a hydrogen containing fuel, in a combustion zone

The present injection system eliminates the need for an enclosed gas pressure vessel in a hydrogen fuel system... The system produces fuel on demand in real-time operation

This film is about the second one.

Where the spraying actually happens

The three-way spraying is done by a mixing assembly upstream, not at the engine. A constant displacement pump feeds all three at 125 psi; the ionized gas is deflected into the water path, and both are then deflected through the non-combustible path. What leaves is one fluid, and Meyer says where it goes: intermixed with water supply prior to entering Water Fuel Injector Plug.

So the injector in the cylinder head has one feed of already-made water fuel. Three arrangements exist in the record — the patent's three-ring plug, the patent's own two-orifice variant, and the vehicle's single premixed line — and they are routinely argued about as if they were one machine.

Figure 2B, below, is the first of those three. His Table I sets out the design, and it is three independent columns, not a row-by-row mapping — laid out in rows it reads as though the ionized gas belonged to resonance and the inert gas to the pulsing. Every constituent is subject to every condition.

injector mixture	process conditions	thermal energy
water mist	released under pressure into the combustion zone	heat
ionized gas	resonance using water's dielectric property as a capacitor	or an engine
non-combustible gas	unipolar pulsing at high voltage	or a jet

And "55" is a part number. The patent's captures and consumes in sink 55 ejected electrons names the electron sink of Figure 5, beside inductors 51 and 52 and diode 53. It is routinely read aloud as a quantity.

What the ionized gas is actually for

This is the part that is usually got wrong. The ionized air is not a diluent and not a primer. It is an electron acceptor:

electrons are ejected from the water molecule and absorbed by ionized gases; and the water molecule, thus destabilized, breaks down into its elemental components of hydrogen (2H) and oxygen (O) in the combustion zone

Stripping electrons off water needs somewhere for them to go, and Meyer is providing it. As an idea that is sound — it is what an anode does. What it cannot do is change the price.

Does the charge keep overnight?

A fair objection, raised by a builder: charge in a dielectric plainly does last — an electret microphone holds its charge for a decade — so why not water fuel standing in a pressurised line? And Meyer claims the engine starts instantly on the first turn.

The answer is one law, not two mechanisms. Charge decays with the material's own relaxation time, τ = ε ⁄ σ, which is resistance times capacitance written for a material. Conductivity is the whole of the difference:

	conductivity	charge survives
PTFE, an electret	10⁻¹⁸ S/m	215 days
transformer oil	10⁻¹² S/m	20 s
light oil, his own slurry carrier	10⁻¹¹ S/m	2 s
ultrapure water	5.5 × 10⁻⁶ S/m	126 µs
tap water	5 × 10⁻² S/m	14 ns

Short of overnight by about 342 million times. But the objection arguably rescues him: his own phrase is "produces fuel on demand in real-time operation". He is not claiming the charge is stored — storing nothing is the point of having no pressure vessel. What stands in the line overnight is water. Which dissolves the storage problem and makes the millisecond problem worse, because all the charging then has to happen at the plug.

The cone is an igniter

The taper itself holds up. Hold the 0.010 inch gap and shrink the circumference and the impedance rises; a lossless taper conserves V² over Z, so voltage rises as its square root, and a 4.5× gain needs a tip radius of 0.147 mm, which is buildable.

What does not hold up is the 90 kV. Air will not allow it across a quarter of a millimetre. Paschen's law:

the gap, his own figure	0.010 in — 0.254 mm
breakdown in open air	about 1.7 kV
at his own 125 psi	about 10.5 kV
the memo's claim	90 kV

Which recasts the cone in his favour rather than against him: it is a pressurised spark gap with the fuel passing through the spark, and that is exactly what his own last activation point says — E9d thermally ignites … by "electrostatic discharge". There is also no stored-energy loophole. The cavity is 7.5 pF in air, 589 pF flooded; at the voltage the gap holds that is 0.4 mJ to 32 mJ, against 117 J.

And the droplets come out on his side. He writes that the greater the droplet size, the higher the voltage required, which is Taylor instability: above a threshold field a droplet tears itself up. At 10.5 kV across 0.254 mm — 41 kV/mm — the largest droplet the field leaves intact is 25.5 µm, and the largest that can evaporate inside the millisecond is 22.4 µm. Two different physics, fifteen per cent apart. Anything the field cannot shatter is already small enough to evaporate. The usual objection — that ninety-five per cent of his range is unusable — does not survive it.

And the dwell is usually asserted, not computed. Computed from his own flow through the .0625 in passage of the WFC 466 drawings, a 7.4 µl shot delivered over 1 ms moves at 3.7 m/s, giving 1.7 to 6.8 ms of dwell in the 0.25–1 inch zone — longer than the millisecond, not a fraction of it.

The 117 joules, which do not move

Taking one 7.4 µl shot apart costs 117 joules. At a hundred shots a second that is 11.7 kW, and the honest place to count it is not a 10 mA choke figure — inhibiting amp leakage in the milliamperes range is a claim about what leaks, not a rating of what the circuit can deliver. Count it at the alternator:

	at 13.8 V
11.7 kW of dissociation, 100 shots a second	851 A
holding the buggy at 65 mph (63 kW of heat)	4,594 A
a stock VW alternator	55 A

That is a clamp meter and ten seconds, and it does not care about waveforms, chokes or resonance.

What still stands

Dilution is right, and it is the third stream's job. Thirty-six per cent non-combustible gas brings a hydrogen flame from 295 cm/s to petrol's 43, drops the peak from 2,483 K to 1,621, and cuts nitric oxide by a factor of 3,716.

He also had the dilution eight years earlier: Hydrogen Air & Non-Combustible Gas Mixing Combustion System, filed 1983, returns the exhaust in a closed loop arrangement to the mixing chamber, with a cooling chamber that also functions as a spark arrestor and a figure 4 for retrofitting an existing car.

And the flame temperature procedure is the plainest how-to page in the file: to elevate flame temperature, fluid displacement is increased while the volume flow rate of non-combustible gases is maintained or reduced and the applied voltage amplitude is increased … to establish a predetermined flame temperature, the fluid media and applied voltage are adjusted independently. Two knobs that do not fight each other.

The search report, counted properly

Bound in four pages after the drawings. It is usually summarised as "two X, four more in Y, the last of them Meyer 4,613,304". Off the scan:

• Category X, two documents: McClure US 4,185,593 (1980) against claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13; Lee US 5,010,869, published 30 April 1991 — six weeks before he filed — against claims 10 to 13.
• Category Y, eight documents: Pacheco, Wigal, Mosher, Paillaud, Levy, and three of Meyer's own patents. The last citation on the list is US 4,936,961, the fuel gas patent.
• Nothing ticked under claims found unsearchable or unity of invention lacking.

A search report is a reading list, not a refusal — the applicant answers it in the national phase by amending. The useful thing to do with the page is to go and read McClure and Lee, which nobody in this archive has done.