Geologist
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
mr-sano
In your post you claim : “The AOT is always been shown situated close to the output side of several 3500 hp centrifugal pumps which can be easily calculated with a Reynolds’s number equation as being turbulent (>2000) Very little argument on that fact…slowing the flow down would defeat the purpose of using AOT in the first place and adding more chambers was just to accommodate the volume of flow so it’s didn’t roadblock the line!”
You like to talk about the Reynold’s number, I have something new for you to think about. Something for you to consider before making statement like the one quoted above. It is Poiseuille’s law.
‘For a specified flow rate, the pressure drop and thus the required pumping power is proportional to the length of the pipe and the viscosity of the fluid, but it is inversely proportional to the fourth power of the radius (or diameter) of the pipe.’
‘As I See It’ gave you an example, to help you understand.
“If we use the TransCanada XL pipeline AOT installation as an example we can see the real story. The TC pipeline had a 36 inch diameter capable of moving 830,000 bpd. To accommodate that size line a skid of 4 AOTs was installed. Each of the four AOTs has an inside diameter of 36 inches. The whole point of installing multiple AOTs after each pumping station was to slow the flow of oil inside the AOT to allow adequate time for treatment to be effective.”
To be brief, according to Poiseuille’s law, the pumping power requirement for a piping system can be reduced by a factor of 16 by doubling the pipe diameter or even better in the case of the TC 36 inch pipeline adding a skid of 4 AOTs (36 inches each) to receive the incoming flow.
I am not going to explain how Poiseuille’s law applies, I will let you do the thinking. You should come to the conclusion that you need to study fluid mechanics more before posting your ideas.
Thank you 'AS I See It' , I always look forward to reading your posts.
2½M originally
MJWL has been showing a $100 loss for the last 8 years. In January I was shocked to see green, I figured it would not last, so I sold 1/5
Yeah, everybody wants to borrow money now. The problem is I have not sold any since January when I sold ½M at 0.003
I hit 136,591% on my initial investment. Got in at 0.0001 in 2012
HMBL
Bought 2,520,000 shares for $252 in 2013, still holding.
I loaded 18 June 2013, bought 2,520,000 shares at 0.0001 thinking I would help a group of kids with their hauling junk project. I then forgot about Majic Wheel until recently. What a surprise! Best $250 I ever spent. I think I will stick around for a while.
Thank you 'AS I See It' we need your expertise to understand what is really going on with all these numbers especially when some try to mislead us.
The sections in red below from the September UPDATE tell us vaguely what the problem was in their initial field tests last summer. It sounds like the conductivity of the oil around the grid pack is a problem. The primary power supply began to operate erratically as soon as they started testing. Can they redesign the grid pack to provide a magnetic fiel and keep the grid pack insulated from oil conductivity?
Full-scale testing on track to resume in Q4 2019 (QS ENERGY PROJECT STATUS UPDATE, 3 September 2019)
The power supply was repaired and reinstalled in late August. The system operated as expected, and limited testing was performed at that time.
“Results of this limited testing were consistent with recent laboratory tests performed at our Tomball, Texas facilities. As expected, the repaired power supply was not capable of providing sufficient power to fully treat the crude oil under commercial operating conditions. This was, however, an important step in support of the Company’s current plans to modify and re-start AOT demonstration project operations.”
Dr. Christopher Gallagher explained, “At full commercial scale, our AOT device operates as a complex and dynamic system. Over the past few months, we have advanced our understanding of the oil flow and electric field interactions of this system both in the lab and in the field. As expected, AOT demonstration operations and testing with the repaired power supply were limited due largely to the combined effects of crude oil conductivity and operating limits of the installed power supply. Though limited, results of these in-field tests were consistent with recent laboratory tests performed both at our Tomball facility and at Temple University. Based on testing to date, we continue to move forward confident in our plans to reconfigure the AOT and re-start AOT demonstration operations before the end of the year. In the meantime, we will continue testing to further improve our understanding of this complex system.”
“In anticipation of this result,” continued Lane, “we put an accelerated plan in place to procure a new power supply capable of providing significantly more power and reconfigure a newly optimized AOT grid pack assembly based on our latest laboratory and in-field test results. Our longest lead-time item is the new power supply, which has been ordered and is in production. Based on the vendor’s current schedule, the new power supply should be delivered by late October to early November. Parts for the reconfigured grid pack are also in production and based on vendor schedules, should arrive at our facilities by mid-October. Subject to on-time vendor deliveries and timely re-assembly of our equipment on-site, we continue to anticipate the resumption of AOT demonstration project operations in the fourth quarter of 2019.
If we go way back to the STWA days, they were more upfront about what kind of power was needed in the AOT.
Investor Relations: ZERO © 2012 STWA, Inc.
It has been shown that an electric field of sufficient strength (about 1 kV/mm)
properly applied to crude oil for a sufficient length of time (approximately several seconds) can cause the suspended particles to aggregate and substantially reduce the effective viscosity of the crude oil.
Subsequently, the aggregated particles gradually dissemble under Brownian motion, causing the effective viscosity of the suspension to gradually increase over time. This dissembling process is relatively slow, taking several hours for the effective viscosity to return to its original value.
If the induced dipole moments are too large and/or the electric field is applied for too long a time duration, the particles quickly aggregate into macroscopic chains or columns and jam the liquid flow, thereby increasing the effective viscosity. On the other hand, if the induced dipole moments are too small, the dipole interactions are too weak to overcome the thermal Brownian motion in the fluid, and clusters are not formed.
Hence, both the electric field strength and time duration over which the field is applied must be optimized to form clusters of sufficient size such that the effective viscosity of the suspension is reduced.
"However, after the electric field reaches 1100 V/mm, a further increase of the electric field mainly makes the chains thicker, leading to a higher intrinsic viscosity. Therefore, it is clear that there is an optimal electric field for the viscosity reduction and it is not true that the higher the electric field, the more the viscosity reduction."
From the most recent Tao publication, the implied treatment energy use is Kilowatt hours 0.0000346 kWh/barrel, which is just irrelevant in terms of pipeline power use.
The AOT itself only draws 720 watts, less than a kettle! Lets say they up the power supply by 10X, which I doubt would be necessary, then gosh it might use the equivalent of ten electric kettles. Still by any measure, inconsequential for a pipeline.
For reference the most recent and relevant information on this was published in the American Physical Society publication.
Thank you AISI, I wanted to post on reduced turbulence as one of the benefits of the AOT. You did a great job.
Not only has Dr. Tao calculated the theoretical basis for turbulence suppression, but field tests have subsequently confirmed those predictions. In China, on a commercial pipeline, the old blue prototype AOT was able to maintain laminar flow at a Reynolds Number of 6348, far above the 2300 level that would normally indicate turbulent flow.
I have heard, I could be wrong, that there are only about 4,000 shareholders of QSEP. I think that most of the shareholders are serious investors that believe in the possibility of commercial success. Every now and then some of our shareholders lose faith or were simply looking for a quick buck and lose patience, hence the low volume.
Factors that affect Head Loss and determine the need for additional pumps along the line.
1) Flow Rate
When the flow rate (GPM) increases, the velocity of the liquid increases at the same rate. The friction or resistance to flow (due to viscosity) also increases. The head loss is related to the square of the velocity so the increase in loss is very quick.
2) Inside diameter of the pipe
When the inside diameter is made larger, the flow area increases and the velocity of the liquid at a given flow rate is reduced. When the velocity is reduced there is lower head loss due to friction in the pipe. On the other hand, if the inside diameter of the pipe is reduced, the flow area decreases, the velocity of the liquid increases and the head loss due to friction increases.
3) Roughness of the pipe wall
As the roughness of the inside pipe wall increases so does the thickness of the slow or non-moving boundary layer of liquid. The resulting reduction in flow area increases the velocity of the liquid and increases the head loss due to friction.
4) Corrosion and Scale Deposits
Scale deposits and corrosion both increase the roughness of the inside pipe wall. Scale buildup has the added disadvantage of reducing the inside diameter of the pipe. All of these add up to a reduction in flow area, an increase of the velocity of the liquid, and an increase in head loss due to friction.
5) Viscosity of the liquid
The higher the viscosity of the liquid is, the higher the friction is from moving the liquid. More energy is required to move a high viscosity liquid than for a lower viscosity liquid.
6) Length of the pipe
Head loss due to friction occurs all along a pipe. It will be constant for each foot of pipe at a given flow rate. That constant (head loss value) must be multiplied by the total length of pipe. This is one of the main reasons why they need to put a pump station every 40 to 60 miles
7) Fittings
Elbows, tees, valves, and other fittings are necessary to a piping system for a pump. It must be remembered that fittings disrupt the smooth flow of the liquid being pumped. When the disruption occurs, head loss due to friction occurs.
8) Straightness of the pipe
Because of momentum, liquid wants to travel in a straight line. If it is disturbed due to crooked pipe, the liquid will bounce off of the pipe walls and the head loss due to friction will increase. There is no accurate way to predict the effects since “crooked” can mean a lot of things.
Here's what has been nagging me lately:
Will each of these pumps following an AOT (50 miles or so down line) actually create a bottleneck to the increased flow? This bottleneck would be the result of bends and fittings in and around the pump, and turbulence caused by the pumping action which would no doubt break down those short chains along the flow direction and increase viscosity. They may have to run the pumps harder in order to maintain the increased flow through the pump. The bottleneck would occur between the pump and the next AOT.
viscosity reduction lasting more than 100 hours
When the electric field is applied along the flow direction in a small section of the pipeline, the field polarizes and aggregates the particles suspended inside the base liquid into short chains along the flow direction.... On the other hand, if we deliberately shake the crude oil violently, the chains will be broken and the viscosity will return to the original value quickly.
I agree, increase flow will not occur with just one AOT on a pipeline equipped with several pumping stations.
But one AOT could reduce the head loss in a difficult stretch of a pipeline.
Head Loss in pipelines
If you want to move something, there will be resistance. To move a given volume of liquid through a pipeline requires a certain amount of energy. An energy or pressure difference must exist to cause the liquid to move. A portion of that energy is lost to the resistance to flow. This resistance to flow is called head loss due to friction.
1) One form of resistance to flow is due to the viscosity of the liquid. We all know what that is.
2) The roughness of the pipeline wall may vary. As the roughness of the inside pipeline wall increases so does the thickness of the slow or non-moving boundary layer of liquid. The resulting reduction in flow area increases the velocity of the liquid and increases the head loss due to friction. The head loss is related to the square of the velocity so the increase in loss is very quick. This would be a difficult stretch of pipeline.
3) Straightness of the pipeline can affect the head loss. Because of momentum, liquid wants to travel in a straight line. If it is disturbed due to a bend in the pipeline, the liquid will bounce off of the pipeline walls and the head loss due to friction will increase. This would be a difficult stretch of pipeline.
Zerodin...your description of a trapped mouse is very good. Same situation for me since 2011. Lately, I am feeling pretty good especially since the arrival of Fluid Dynamics Expert Christopher T. Gallagher (Ph.D.) as a consulting engineer.
Back in February 2014, I had a lengthy fluid dynamics discussion with 'alkalinesolution1' and 'moorea9' about the mechanism by which the AOT increases the volume of crude pushed through a pipe over a given period of time. See Post #6166
It was very interesting to see how everybody had a different understanding of how the AOT works, In the end, we got a response from STWA on the 12th of February 2014.
I received this confirmation directly from Dr. Tao, in an email (compiled by Alkaline).
He said that:
1) the total pressure is the sum of the Delta P (pressure drop) of each section
2) if you reduce the pressure drop in one section, you reduce total pressure as well
3) power is total pressure * flow rate Q
4) so if you reduce pressure drop in one section, you reduce total power
5) however the equation cited is only for laminar flow, and does not apply to a turbulent flow. But the pressure drop question is still the same. There are other equations for determining the situation in turbulent/laminar flow scenarios.
In conclusion, for everyone who has been confused by the science mumbo jumbo: if you put the AOT in the middle of a section of pipeline, you get increased flow. If you put another AOT on, you get more increased flow. If you put AOTs all the way along, you get still more increased flow. One section of treated oil in a pipeline will give you some benefit, and more AOTs will give you more benefit. That is the conclusion of all this.
To be fair to your friend, this comment:
"Look at the equation: V = velocity in pipe = Q (flow rate through pipe) / A (pipe cross section area)
In a closed system (pipeline) the A is constant and the Q on entry is equal to the Q on exit (conservation of mass), therefore the velocity in the pipe is unchanged."
Is kind of true (actually the equation is Q=VA),
According to Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
I have a question for the experts on this board.
Last Wednesday at the very last minutes before closing someone bought 100 shares for 38 cents. As a result, my portfolio showed an increase of nearly $100,000 just because of QSEP. You could say that last minute buy set off a sudden interest in QSEP. Probably many other investors were also alerted to this sudden increase in share price. Who would make such a buy and why?
Would it be a market maker?
In 2017, ZEROSUM you wrote:
CDEL is the robot on QSEP which is run by the market makers, and they constantly are throwing small buys and sells around. They jump ahead of the highest bid fractionally on the bid, and they go fractionally lower than the highest offer. Once they get filled on the bid or the offer, they then add shares to sell higher what they just bought, or buy lower what they just sold and they do this on every OTC stock all day long. They are constantly making money and taking advantage of the spread, and in OTC stocks the spread is wide. They make a lot of money just doing this while making a market for the stock.
Been here since 2011, have bought 24 times since then and never sold a share. At 38 cents I was finally contemplating the possibility of my QSEP portfolio going green.
Thank you AISI, your summary of the meeting and optimism is very reassuring. It is always a treat to read your posts.
There is no mention of QSEP but the AOT is mention 8 times in that Archives of Petroleum & Environmental Biotechnology article published on the 26 of December 2017. Obviously, Dr. Rongjia Tao agreed not to mention QSEP. I wonder why?
Added another 35,000 shares this morning.
I have been adding shares on a regular basis since 2011.
My average cost per share is in a very comfortable position.
I am also quite comfortable waiting whatever time it takes for this company to commercialize its product. It will happen.
Long & strong Myrka
Thank you Alkaline
Will be reading everything you post
I did but a boat load at 5 cents to get there.
I will be in the green at 60 cents
The posts today from 6:30 AM to 12:30 PM where very interesting.
I would like to compliment those who contributed such great content. A special thank you to 'As I See It', not only do you clearly understand the rules, practices and procedures of the stock market, you provide an intellectual atmosphere conductive to the stimulation and interchange of ideas. I must admit that when I open the QSEP INVESTORSHUB and see one of your posts, I know it is going to be interesting.
A Calgary engineer thinks an invention he stumbled upon in the laboratory could transform the way Alberta gets its heavy oil to market.
We have discussed this before.
Earth1 19 Aug 2015
To respond to a number of recent posts on the energy use per barrel question
Energy use per barrel was never a concern despite the attempts at misdirection.
It's interesting to see this red herring being brought up again and again using lab data that's years old, inapplicable to pipeline scale operations and plainly superseded by more recent pipeline data.
From the most recent Tao publication, the implied treatment energy use is Kilowatt hours 0.0000346 kWh/barrel, which is just irrelevant in terms of pipeline power use.
All the information needed to determine this is in Tao's document.
The AOT itself only draws 720 watts, less than a kettle! Lets say they up the power supply by 10X, which I doubt would be necessary, then gosh it might use the equivalent of ten electric kettles. Still by any measure, inconsequential for a pipeline.
Here is a somewhat more detailed description of the re-engineering of the Kinder Morgan AOT unit. Everyone should pay particular attention to the bold and red colored phrases.
Quote:
" In December 2015, the Kinder Morgan AOT unit was retrofitted with the value-engineered internal components at Industrial Screen and Maintenance (“ISM”), one of QS Energy’s supply chain partners. Tests performed by ISM on the re-engineered unit demonstrated improvements in system efficiency, and a significant increase in internal impedance. Tests performed on an unmodified AOT measured impedance at approximately 200 mega-ohms of resistance. Under similar conditions, the re-engineered AOT measured more than 20,000 mega-ohms; a 100 times increase in impedance. As modified, the AOT needed only 500 to 800 nano-amps to achieve a test voltage of 15,000 volts. These design modifications, specifically designed to address impedance issues experienced in the Kinder Morgan condensate pipeline tests, have the potential of improving efficacy and efficiency in crude oil pipeline operations as well. The increased efficiencies measured on the re-engineered unit has the potential to mitigate the need for a larger power supplies as experienced on operations on TransCanada’s high volume crude oil pipeline."
In my little world, up here in Canada, we were wondering what happened to JT the DD King. Glad to see that you are still around.
I agree with you, anybody long on QSEP since 2013 or before, is not selling at these prices.
I believe they are already working on that problem.
January 10, 2017
QS Energy, Inc. a developer of integrated technology solutions for the energy industry, today announced that it has been asked to expand its product line by developing a high volume AOT (Applied Oil Technology) viscosity reduction pressure vessel called the AOT-XL to improve flow efficiency within an existing crude oil offloading marine terminal. An earlier feasibility study had concluded that to accommodate the operational flow rates of this customer, a complicated and overly expensive deluge of standard AOT units would be required, which would have surpassed the available space for installation. The solution was to design the AOT-XL, a customized system capable of handling extreme flow rates while substantially reducing the complexity of installation and footprint necessary to position the system as requested.
A higher volume pipeline would also require multiple AOTs set up alongside one another, of course.
Well said Whacky, I could not have put it in better words.
XL AOT project would not exist if it was not for the TC & KM trials. The XL would not have been considered if previous trials were not successful. QSEP would not have undertaken the XL AOT without support and collaboration of one of 19 independent oil production and transportation entities interested in harnessing its demonstrated efficacy.
I have always believed that for the AOT to be fully successful, it needs to be installed at every pumping station on a pipeline. This topic was discussed at length in January 2014 with Alkalinesolution1.
whackywinston Post#36463
But - if every inch of every pipeline is to be covered, why is anyone going to make a purchase or lease until the appropriately comprehensive level of testing and fine tuning has been done ?
The XL is being designed specifically for facilities located offshore that offload tankers transporting large volumes of crude oil to gulf coast refineries. Space on these platforms is at a premium.
The one off or bespoke installation sets a precedent for all the more complex installations of the future.
My favorite posts are from AS I See It
In his post #28931 :
On June 6th, we were told that QSEP and their partner "Kinder Morgan" are now considering how best to implement the integration of the AOT into the "Kinder" pipeline. This is hardly the type of thing that you would expect if the tests from April through June 6th had gone badly. Do you really think "Kinder" would say "the economics of this AOT are not commercially viable, but let's waste some time and money figuring out how to best integrate it onto our line anyway"???
We all agree that the AOT works and since April it has been improved.
KM have been very involved in the re-engineered AOT.
They are also indirectly defining the implementation and operation procedures through the SCADA software.
Now that we are talking about AOT valuation numbers, is it not a strong possibility that KM will want a piece of the pie?
What would be a reasonable offer (buyout) that QSEP's 4000 shareholder would consider?
Am I the only person on this board thinking about that possible outcome?
The vertical orientation did not work as impedance eventually went high.
We are working with Temple University and Kinder Morgan to resolve this issue. As explained below, we believe reinstalling the unit in a vertical configuration will correct the issue of impedance reduction due to conductive particulate matter.
Similar conditions have been experienced in earlier prototype tests at the Rocky Mountain Oilfield Testing Center ("RMOTC"). In these operations, the presence of conductive particulate matter was mitigated by installing the AOT in a vertical, rather than horizontal, orientation. When installed horizontally, large particulate matter can congregate at the base of the treatment vessel. If these particles are conductive, they can effectively bridge the gap between electrodes, reducing impedance and causing the system to short out.
Zerosum, you are not alone, because I am one of many shareholders who check-in nearly every day to read the posts just to get the pulse of those who have been longtime supporters of STWA/QSEP and are willing to put into words their confidence in the technology and management. I dread to see the day where posts are all critical of QSEP... that would be a bad sign. Many IHUB readers are silent and longtime supporters of this company.
On August 1, 2013, STWA entered into an Agreement with TransCanada Keystone Pipeline to test the effectiveness of the AOT technology and equipment on an operating pipeline with a flow of 20,000 gallons per minute. The first full test of the AOT equipment on the Keystone pipeline was performed in July 2014, with preliminary data analyzed and reported by Dr. Rongjia Tao of Temple University.
” Flows through pipes, such as crude oil through pipelines, are the most common and important method of transportation of fluids. To enhance the flow output along the pipeline requires reducing viscosity and suppressing turbulence simultaneously and effectively. Unfortunately, no method is currently available to accomplish both goals simultaneously. Here we show that electrorheology provides an efficient solution. When a strong electric field is applied along the flow direction in a small section of pipeline, the field polarizes and aggregates the particles suspended inside the base liquid into short chains along the flow direction. Such aggregation breaks the rotational symmetry and makes the fluid viscosity anisotropic. In the directions perpendicular to the flow, the viscosity is substantially increased, effectively suppressing the turbulence. Along the flow direction, the viscosity is significantly reduced; thus the flow along the pipeline is enhanced. Recent field tests with a crude oil pipeline fully confirm the theoretical results."
The suppressed turbulence is a bonus that was not considered or advertised when TransCanada signed a deal to test the AOT in 2013. Also an independent laboratory performed viscosity measurements at the TransCanada facility during subsequent testing in September 2014 and submitted a report which concluded that data indicated a decrease in viscosity of crude oil flowing through the TransCanada pipeline due to AOT treatment of the crude oil.
So why are we not seeing sales?
The July 2014 results showed reduced viscosity of the crude oil, but also determined that the efficacy of the AOT technology was constrained due to the limitations of the electric field applied by the power supply installed. STWA and TransCanada mutually agreed that this initial test was flawed due to, among other factors, the short term nature of the test, the inability to isolate certain independent pipeline operating factors such as fluctuations in upstream pump station pressures. TransCanada is still under NDA with STWA for a reason and I suspect there will be more tests. A company thinking of spending millions on a new technology will want to be absolutely sure the device performs consistently with changing oil types, variable air temperature, and has the potential to be relied on for many years.
When TC decided to stop testing the AOT they did assign an engineer to work with STWA (I remember reading this somewhere, but I could not find a reference). Because of the NDA we do not know for sure what they are doing. Logically the AOT is being fitted with a device that can be calibrated allowing the unit to adapt to as many variables as possible. The AOT will then need to be tested thoroughly and it's ability to adapt refined to produce the optimum electric field as oil type changes before any contract is signed.