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.
I'll be the first to grant that ENY is a small ETF, but I'm not sure where you're getting the $10M number from. Their current holdings are around $58.5M, their ETF is traded on NYSE Arca at a current value of $14.70. So yes, they're small, but throwing around the word "nanocap" as though it disqualifies them is certainly inaccurate and unfair. Claiming that 'this means nothing' ignores that a firm, whose only goal is to buy stocks and make money, thinks that STWA is a good bet.
More importantly, I'll argue that a qualitative assessment of this decision is more significant. You'll notice that 98% of their holdings are oil and gas companies, and 99% of their holdings are Canadian companies. This means they know their stuff when it comes to oil and gas technologies, and STWA must have really caught their eye for them to take an interest in a US company.
So really, is your best argument, "Sure, they're an institutional investor, but who cares because they're a small institutional investor"? I'd be curious to see your data on how many pump and dumps get bought up by ETFs. As I see it the significance of institutional interest, even by a small ETF, short-circuits the bulk of 'it's not a real company/not a real product' arguments.
Hi again everyone. Apologies for being MIA for most of the past month but real life has a funny way of taking up a lot of time. I’d like to thank everyone for continuing to fight the good fight. Debate is a good thing, and I’m not concerned if someone is for or against the future of ZERO as long as they are authentically deliberating as opposed to shouting with their ears covered. I will note, though that my prolonged absence let me see a few trends which seem to be significant, and perhaps warrant more attention. At its core there are really only three arguments being made by those who are pessimistic on STWA long-term, each of which has a pretty compelling response.
1) The first set of arguments can be grouped under “AOT is a scam.” These arguments conclude that everything about the company is a lie and that there is nothing credible. The evidence given for this is that they had failed products in the past, Cecil got a pay raise, and the company paid for DOE testing . Such arguments beg the question: If AOT is junk and STWA is a scam, how deep does the rabbit hole go? History works against these arguments pretty significantly. If it’s really a P&D, why didn’t Cecil et. Al dump their shares at $1.70+ before the SA article? Or more recently when ZERO tested $1.50? Certainly people would be more than happy to make a $1.20 profit per share on their converted warrants. So it should be clear that’s not simply a P&D. Further, if the technology is just fake, then how do we explain the RMOTC testing results? When those who are short make arguments that “the tech isn’t as good as advertised,” rather than “AOT is made up” they are tacitly conceding that it can’t simply be a pump and dump.
2) But what about the junk company arguments? These arguments grant that perhaps Cecil is a good guy, but the tech is all a lie. And even if it’s NOT a total lie, this is only lab testing, not real world testing. Pushing this further, some post they simply “don’t believe” that AOT would work for 11+ hours (or as Pumper claimed, even a few mm away from the source). I’m 100% in agreement with Sano that more testing is a good thing, and it would probably enhance the faith that skeptics in the industry have of the technology. The problem for this argument, though, is all field testing has confirmed or exceeded the lab results. Thus I offer the Pepsi Challenge. Where is your evidence that your *doubt* is well grounded? All of the lab and field testing show it is on a shaky foundation. If one were to make the argument that the tests are invalid (as has been made many times), I again ask – are you claiming that the folks up at RMOTC fabricated the data? THAT is the question that needs to be answered. If the answer is “Yes,” well, we have bigger problems than just debating about a penny stock. Plus, I’d wonder about the end game. Why would someone like Cecil buy off the DOE so he could make an extra $100,000, and what would be in it for the DOE? The “Yes” answer raises far more questions than it answers. If the answer is “No,” well, that means that the best evidence we have of the technology indicates that there is a measurable difference in the viscosity of oil when AOT is turned on. AOT isn’t like Tinker Bell. It works regardless of whether you believe in it.
3) DILUTION! DEFAULT! SEC INVESTIGATIONS! ELEKTRA! AOT is Teflon. The objections just won’t stick because they're artificially constructed. About every week those who doubt the future viability of the stock dig up something new and run with that until we as a community distill our responses into a theoretically tight sound-bite which can’t really be refuted. Given this, the ‘red herring’ approach seems to be the modus operendi. The common objection is “Penny stock = more dilution,” occasionally “STWA is in default with Temple,” and the peppering of “STWA was a bad company, therefore, they continue to be a bad company.” My sense is that when it is necessary for people to take a “throw everything against the wall and see what sticks” approach, they tend to be on weak footing. Obviously there are pitfalls and challenges to overcome for STWA to find commercial success, but the strength of the science, the fortitude of the executives, and the lack of real substantive objections makes ZERO a stock to hold.
Actually yes.
You have no evidence for any of your claims, and all of the official reports indicate that you are incorrect. The most recent SEC filings show that STWA has more cash on hand than it ever has. The company says it will not add more shares beyond the warrants which already exist. Those who hold the warrants aren't selling. The "dilution" scare-tactic is a non-starter.
Exclusive licensing with Temple means a competitor which attempts to do the same thing doesn't have an in. Plus they'd be a decade behind on the R&D. Plus, industry dissatisfaction with heating/additive solutions indicates that STWA provides a novel and desired solution. All of this adds up to "time is on ZERO's side"
Why I write my posts
This is mostly a response to Double and Alkaline, but also to others who have suggested that we just ignore those who doubt the viability of STWA, hoping they will go away. Obviously my goal in posting isn't to persuade those who are short that they have made a wrong decision. I totally agree that such a task is an exercise in futility. My audience, instead, are those people on the sidelines who are thinking about opening a position, or perhaps those who are frustrated that we don't yet have a contract in hand and thinking about leaving with a modest profit.
I started posting on here when the "leave them be and they'll go away" sentiment was hitting its peak. They didn't go away and instead were able to just write more and more outlandish comments. The think the proverbial straw was a post by someone which was nothing but a stack of lies couched in fancy scientific jargon. Seeing the state of other websites like RB and Yahoo forums, places where public deliberation goes to die, it seemed fitting that there be at least one place where those who are invested would be able to have an intelligent conversation about the company.
Some have insinuated that responding to those who are opposed to STWA is 'what they want'. I disagree with this claim. What they want is to induce an aura of uncertainty and distrust by posting old and outdated information and hope that their claims carry the day (DID YOU KNOW THEY WERE IN TROUBLE AT THE SEC?! THIS IS THE COMPANY WITH ZEFs!!!). Their greatest tool is to use the lack of knowledge of new investors and scare them off. There are far more people who lurk this forum than post here. I probably was reading here a year before I signed up for an account. With the Euro road-trip and increasingly more public attention, we are at a moment where there are a lot of people who lack that savvy knowledge to dismantle the arguments of those who are opposed. Look at the steep dip that occurred immediately after the SA article. We had a new large base of investors who were just getting on for the ride, only to get smacked in the face with disinformation. SWTA is going to make us a lot of money. I consider this a public service to help others understand the nuts and bolts of why AOT is such an awesomely simple disruptive technology.
Plus, I'm at the computer all day doing my own work. Whenever I'm spinning gears on what I ought to be doing, it's refreshing to take fifteen minutes and thoroughly dismantle a weak set of arguments. Alkaline says it might be a 'fun' thing for me to do - and he's not wrong - but I'll opt instead for 'relaxing'. Plus this way, everyone will be able to build up a database of peer reviewed journal articles about the science related to AOT technology! Hurray?
I suppose that the real way to beat the basher isn't simply to refute all of their arguments (although constant engagement means they have to write longer and longer posts, minimizing the potential proliferation of their posts), but instead to encourage those who are sitting on the sidelines to jump in. I'd like to know what questions or concerns Joe and Jane Doe have that about STWA that we aren't talking about, instead of just sparring with someone who isn't listening anyway while I attempt to speak with a faceless audience. So sign up and hop in. It's a fun crowd.
1) You say: Absurd..you are comparing a field test at 200/gal per minute low pSI to a a supposed operation threshold of 1500/gal with so many more untested variables its difficult to even list them all! Primary the changing elevation and aspect of the route along with temperature gradients would warrant all kinds of preliminary investigation. They are nowhere near proving this. Sorry I can't wrap my head around paraffin molecules clumping together for 11 hours as they pressurized through a cold pipe with no diluent and no heat. Remember that's the claim...get rid of energy wasting heating and processing chemicals along with dropping pump KW usage by 50%
This is a really bad argument that I don't think you want to be making. For weeks, you've made the argument that lab tests aren't enough evidence to support commercialization. Yet here, you're more than confident to argue that Tao's lab tests, which you interpret as requiring a new AOT unit every two miles, is superior to the field tests at RMOTC. On what grounds are you going to argue that a lab result is a better indicator than a controlled field test?
Further, you talk about a stack of untested variables. While I agree that it hasn't been through every imaginable gauntlet, it's worth considering why STWA lists AOT as being required somewhere between 30 and 100 miles, depending on conditions. Seeing as they know that it will be less than 1/3 as effective in certain conditions compared to the optimal, we have plenty of reason to believe that they know what they're doing.
Finally, your inability to "wrap your head around paraffin molecules clumping together for 11 hours" doesn't make it untrue. Unless you're arguing that the folks at RMOTC were lying when they produced their report, then the only actual data tells us that it really did take 11 hours for the effects for AOT to fully dissipate. As for your paraffin concerns, the results have been independently verified. You always make pleas for more peer reviewed research, so I'll save you the time.
Reduction of Paraffin Precipitation and Viscosity of Brazilian Crude Oil Exposed to Magnetic Fields
José L. Gonçalves, Antonio J. F. Bombard, Demetrio A. W. Soares, and Glaucia B. Alcantara
Energy & Fuels 2010 24 (5), 3144-3149
Studying the Mechanism of Magnetic Field Influence on Paraffin Crude Oil Viscosity and Wax Deposition Reductions
Nguyen Phuong Tung, Nguyen Van Vuong, Bui Quang Khanh Long, Ngo Quang Vinh, Pham Viet Hung, Institute of Materials Science-Vietnam NCNS; Vu Tam Hue, Petro Vietnam; Le Dinh Hoe, Vietsov Petro
SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, 17-19 April 2001, Jakarta, Indonesia
The Effect of Magnetic Radiation on Pipeline Transportation of Crude Oil
Zhang Weiwei, Zhang Guangyu, Dong Huijuan
"The Effect of Magnetic Radiation on Pipeline Transportation of Crude Oil," Digital Manufacturing and Automation (ICDMA), 2010 International Conference on , vol.2, no., pp.676,678, 18-20 Dec. 2010.
All of these studies agree, yes, paraffin can be treated by magnetic means, and that it's comparatively better than either trying to heat it or use chemicals. Also, as a bonus, you'll notice that "Tao" isn't the author on any of these articles, answering an earlier critique that if the science is true, why isn't anyone else talking about it. Answer? They are.
2) You say: I agree management should show us a cost benefit...why haven't they to date? Would this not be the major selling point that would need to hammered home before the orders start rolling in? I have always maintained that while a lab effect may be observable the actual utility of putting these device in service in the field likely does not offset the cost of doing so.
Because you're not going to be paying somewhere around a few hundred million to buy these units and install them on your pipeline. Plus, your aforementioned discussion of the wide number of variables means that they can't just put together an investor tear sheet that gives the comparative energy savings at a pipeline at an external temperature of 31F at a 2-degree downward slope versus an external temperature of 19F at a 4-degree downward slope.
This goes into the category of "Why are you holding STWA to a standard that other companies don't meet." Certainly they know the answers to these questions, and will give that to the relevant parties. What they do give us is plenty of spreadsheets and graphs that show the energy savings. If the information provided not good enough for an investor, they don't need to invest. For me, this goes into the "good-is-good-enough" category. All of the science backs up the claims they are making, and knowing the minutia of how AOT will perform is secondary to the qualitative statement that "it works, and it will save a lot of energy."
However, the fun part in your answer here is that you again critique the faith we put in lab tests. As I stated in #1, you argue we should trust lab tests which indicate AOT only works every two miles, but not trust the RMOTC when they say it lasts 11 hours, but here we go back to not trusting the lab tests because there isn't enough information there. So should be trust Tao's lab work or not? At least be consistent, because it seems your attempts to negate STWA at every opportunity have you all turned around.
Way to critique the argument I flag as "least compelling" I'd be curious about your responses to my #1 and #2 arguments.
The analogy drawn to Moore's law was only meant to illustrate the exponential rate in which technological progress is able to advance at. In my original post I noted that this was only meant to be a corollary to make sense of how the rate of progress exponentially improves. So your not even attacking my argument, you're attacking an analogy I am making with reference to my argument.
If you think that the evolution of technology can't happen with AOT, why does the system improve from AOT 1.1 to AOT 1.2?
I'll say, Sano makes a lot of unsophisticated arguments on here but we should probably make it a point to engage when actual objections are being made. This at least seems like a more substantive objection than re-posting safe harbor statements or just insisting that AOT is magic. A few possible answers come to mind. I'm listing them in order of how much compelling these arguments are to me:
1) We already know that AOT is substantially better than the 2 mile mark. Referring to the oft cited RMOTC report, "When the AOT was disengaged, viscosity, friction loss, and pressure drop were observed to remain suppressed, returning to baseline values after approximately 11 hours before the temperature viscosity reduction effect supplanted the AOT viscosity reduction effect." Unless you've got some seriously thick crude, a single AOT treatment will take you far further than 2 miles. Even at a sluggish 3 MPH, that means that we're still going 33 miles before the effect wears off.
2) It's unclear from that snippet of Tao's article about what happens after "a couple miles". What we do know from the quote Sano posted is that Tao talks about reapplying every 15-60 minutes to keep viscosity and pressure low. While it might be true that to keep the oil at the lowest possible levels would require a new station to reapply every hour, that would cause a tradeoff with the value-savings. Reapplying every 30-100 miles is likely a "good-is-good-enough" situation where the oil is constantly being treated to reduce viscosity, even though it's not financially viable to always keep it at the minimum achievable level.
This is where Cecil would show potential suitors a neat cost-benefit graph which would show that the optimal savings occur not by keeping viscosity at the lowest imaginable levels, but to keep reapplying it after Brownian motion has done its thing on the oil for a while, and to zap it with AOT further down the line after some of the viscosity and pressure reductions have degraded.
3) Who knows, maybe the tech really has improved dramatically. Moore's law gives us a useful corollary. Granted, this was developed to make sense of the rate of computer development, but other fields are found to follow this curve as well. For Moore, from 2005-2013 the efficiency of the technology should have doubled 5 times. Even if we spot the "2 miles in 2005" Moore's law would project the tech going 64+ miles in 2013.
Now, I'm NOT saying that this is the case and that pipeline technology follows a doubling pattern, but when Sano makes the claims of seemingly impossible improvements rates, Moore gives us a good reference point to realize that lots of fields progress in this doubling pattern, with plenty going faster. The bit of evidence along these lines is that the RMOTC tested both AOT 1.1 (Oct 2011) and 1.2 (Mar 2012), and judged that there were improvements on only that short 5 month timeframe. With AOT 1.2 getting us 11 hours of reductions, I wouldn't be surprised to hear that AOT 2.0 gets us 100 miles in the right conditions.
After a week with such crazy volume, any thoughts on what the sudden return to normalcy indicates?
Can you post your source for these people putting any of their converted shares on the market?
The conversion of shares is only a problem if they're immediately dumped. And since the PPS has risen dramatically since these warrants were exercised... the doom and gloom scenario you outline doesn't cohere with reality. I'm sure that you'll be able to get your hands on some of these shares once the company is listed on NASDAQ, probably at about $10 each. But I admit when I'm speculating... maybe it'll be $25!
Kudos on responding to the part of my argument I flag as 'irrelevant'. I'm not concerned with what metric you use. To draw a comparison, to other companies (yet remain on topic) Apple drop in PPS has pushed Exxon into the #1 biggest company. The metric used was market cap. If you want to make a THIRD post on this irrelevant issue, have at it.
However, I'm still waiting for your arguments about why this 'default' is something to be concerned about. I've provided my arguments. You have ignored them. The only thing you have done is repost the same paragraph from the 10Q that Sano posted earlier. Simply saying "Period" isn't an argument. Make arguments and we can have a debate about them.
As a moderator, I shouldn't need to remind you that "Posting the same "noise" posts i.e. "to da moon" or "this stock is a POS" continuously without other relevant content" qualities as spam. So please, make arguments and provide analysis rather than just shouting single words in bold.
Thank you for your compelling insight as the arguments you provide clearly advance the conversation with their depth and scope. (I can't find the sarcasm formatting... help?)
Size - when judging the size of a company, one typically uses market cap as an indicator. And since that number is over 200M, I think that STWA qualifies as a multi-million dollar company. Not that this argument really impacts anything.
As for default - I've already provided in depth analysis for why this 'default' has been agreed upon by both Temple and STWA before the SEC filing. You need to provide arguments showing that this is something to be concerned about, rather than a common-sense step in the renegotiation of the licensing agreement.
This isn't an electric bill. It won't just get turned off when you stop paying it. This is a multi-million dollar company in negotiation with a highly active research institution. I love more and more how you are hanging onto singular lines in the SEC filings in the hopes of causing trouble (I notice you haven't posted the safe harbor statement yet today... you should probably get on that) because that's the only ammo you have left.
You're ignoring the prerequisite framing question "the Company and Temple agreed to defer payment... pending renegotiation". It is not a question of STWA refusing to pay their bills, it's that both parties decided they should agree on what the future holds before those bills get paid.
Other important statement: "The Company has not received any termination notice or notice of default." The implication is that Temple doesn't have the opportunity to sell to the highest bidder, since the licensing agreement hasn't been terminated. If there were any risk of this, it would be clear that STWA would just pay its bills and continue negotiation. But fortunately, both groups are run by adults who understand how this all works.
The interesting assumption of your argument, that the company just raised 4M and are doing pretty well financially (meaning they should pay the bills to keep the lights on) indicts the doom and gloom argument that they'll need to keep diluting the company. You really can't have it both ways.
Alkaline --
I agree. If people are going to actually voice objections and concerns, your doing it correctly and with balance. Thanks!
My argument for why there is so little doom and gloom is that STWA is in the drivers seat. It's taken years to take a scientific concept and put it into commercial application. It would be baffling for Temple to pull the plug when they're close. Maybe the negotiations will result in Temple getting a sliding percentage predicated on total sales as opposed to set number now. Maybe HAL is trying to squeeze them a bit. That is all speculation that no one has any real answer for. But regardless of the shift in the agreement, I can't see a compelling reason why Temple has the leverage over STWA.
I can bold too!
And it tells quite a different, non-threatening, story:
As of March 31, 2013 and 2012, the Company accrued a total of $162,500 and $125,000 respectively pursuant to these licensing agreements which are included as part of Accounts Payable – licensing agreement in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. In January 2013, the Company and Temple agreed to defer payment of the amount due pending renegotiation of the agreement. As of the date of this quarterly report, the amount due is currently past due and the Company deemed in default. The Company has not received any termination notice or notice of default from Temple and is currently renegotiating the existing agreement.
It seems that starting today, default is the new dilution.
My read of the above passage from the 10Q is that STWA and Temple know that big money is around the corner and that Temple wants a better deal. This seems to answer Sano's previous question "If the tech is so good, why would Temple settle for such little money?" They're not, hence renegotiation. Do you seriously believe that an RU/H institution would just let a company not pay them and not tell the company to stop? It's obvious that this means big things around around the corner.
Wow, just wow!
I don't think there's any conspiracy here. Today was a really volatile day and I can envision people who picked up some shares at, say, 1.20 a few days ago flipping them for a quick profit. I'm calling coincidence on this one.
However, after a day with wide swings, I have no problems with the price ending flat.
LETS JUST SHOUT THE WORD DILUTION AS MANY TIMES SO THAT WE CAN TRY TO SCARE PEOPLE!
Please.
1) Conversion of warrants is to the benefit of the company's pursuit to uplist. This has been rehashed so many times, I don't need to explain it again.
2) The company agrees this is happening. That's why they say "We are not looking to fund raise from outside sources." That means all additional fundraising will be from the conversion of warrants.
3) The prerequisite to your argument being scary is that the people who convert their warrants will just dump them onto the market. As a short I know you're praying for that to happen but out here in the real world this is not something which has occurred. Where is your evidence of Cecil et. al selling hundreds of thousands of share? Whatsthatnow? They keep exercising their warrants and holding them? Oh man. That doesn't seem disconcerting at all. Some might even call it responsible.
And, as a bonus, where's your evidence they need an additional 15-20M? Seems like you're just making that number up.
Obviously, their exact purposes are being played close to the chest, but I would expect it's a bit of column A and column B. Yes, they're meeting with institutional investors to raise the profile of the company. But, they also note: "The overall purpose for this business trip is to meet with these and other energy industry parties in person to discuss details about moving forward." My interpretaion of this statement is that they are also meeting with the people building those pipelines that are getting oil into Europe.
This isn't zero-sum with US clients. Assuming that the groups under NDA are clients in waiting, we've already got plenty of interest in the US. It only makes sense to go abroad and try to expand ones reach.
From the same PR:
"We are taking this opportunity to update our network of direct investors in Europe on recent corporate developments, including our strengthened balance sheet, which produced the best financial statement in the Company's history. We are not looking to fund raise from outside sources"
The sentence you post which ends the PR about attracting institutional investors is less about creating more shares (which would be dilution), and more about making them buy what's already on the market. This is why their short declarative "We are not looking to fund raise" is so important. So rather than dilution, we will have a lot more people vying for the same number of shares, pushing the stock price north. And since the stock price is up $.46 since they left, it seems reasonable to assume that it's getting a lot of attention.
Myrka, Glad you enjoy the posts. Just trying to to translate scientific-journal-speak to the public at large.
You did forget their two most enjoyable tactics though! 1) Ask a whole lot of open ended questions but refuse to answer any of your own, and 2) When someone answers their questions, delete your post and repost the same questions a few days later, INSISTING that no one has answered this question before.
I'll bite on you science questions, because the "Who is LG" and "What about the Chinese?!" have been dealt with so many times. Fortunately, my answers are short and sweet.
You ask: "How about a bet if anyone can prove that particles simply align and follow the magnetic field lines, and upon leaving revert back to the same disorder and chaos that nature always reverts to?"
1) The goal isn't to get the particles to follow magnetic lines, and asking this question shows that you're getting stuck on the way the tech works at a basic level. The goal is to treat the oil with pulsed electric or magnetic fields to aggregate those particles in the oil which would otherwise increase viscosity. Once treated, these particles tend toward the center of the pipe, permitting smaller and more viscous particles to gravitate to the outside. These pulses lead to a rheological change in the crude oil, resulting in a viscosity reduction.
2) The second half of your question, about reverting it back, betrays how naive you really are about science generally. IF ONLY the change to the oil were permanent! That would mean the oil could be treated once and sent on its way. But because Brownian motion is a thing, particles have a tendency to move randomly. This means aggregations of iron, paraffin, asphalt, or other high viscosity particles will break back apart over time. Usually a number of hours. Which is why they have to have AOT units installed ~50 miles.
Science!
Just a word on MRFs. It might be the case that refined petrol has no magnetic particles (frankly I didn't bother to check, sounds dubious), but the crude going through pipelines sure does as it is typically contaminated with trace amounts of metals like iron, nickel, and copper. Seeing as most research on modifying MRFs with electromagnets are concerned with the suspension of particles at the nano- and micro-meter levels, it's clear these trace amounts are enough to be affected by electric fields. So unless you're saying all the lab research is just made up, I'm not sure where this argument gets you.
All the answers to your other questions are already in the RMOTC report, if you're willing to look. They kept running the test with the system off to determine how long the effects lasted. It's in page 6 of the report:
"When the AOT was disengaged, viscosity, friction loss, and pressure drop were observed to remain suppressed, returning to baseline values after approximately 11 hours before the temperature viscosity reduction effect supplanted the AOT viscosity reduction effect."
As for your power questions, I'll direct you to page 9 of the report, where they include a handy chart showing that the pump stays at a steady ~16KW requirement across the test, far from the spikes up to ~35KW without AOT. Independent of the energy used for AOT, we're seeing a substantial reduction in energy consumption in the pumps, which was the object of the study. It is also worth noting that the AOT power was recorded, but is listed at a classified level. Before you go all conspiracy theory, the reason for this is pretty clear. In the Wang et. al article I posted, their analysis shows significantly different results based on the strength of the field used. This is still proprietary technology in development, so tipping their hand on this information is probably unwise from a business perspective. So again, they did measure AOT power use on pages A2-A3, they're just not telling you the answer. So I guess it computes.
Yes, the DOE was paid to run the tests (by STWA and the PRCI). I guess the question is why this is unique to STWA, and what the alternative is for initial field tests. Should the DOE do the testing for free? Should STWA just build their own test site? Should they go to a company building a pipeline, saying "We have no real-world data on this, but want to plug it in and see what happens?" Again, you are holding STWA to burdens which do not cohere with how the world actually works. Who are there "Many" who think the test is biased, and on what grounds do they think it is biased? Are you claiming that George Hughes and Wes Riesland, the engineers who produced the RMOTC report maliciously lied about the data? These are pretty serious accusation. If true, I think that you should get people to audit the RMOTC rather than just trying to depress the stock price of a small-cap company, because the implications for our energy policies will be far worse than Cecil making an extra $100,000.
Finally, as for the Electra -> AOT shift, doing the research in the science journals gives an answer, but I admit a speculative one which makes some sense. The science didn't support the claim that treating diesel would improve combustion, but it DOES support the reduction in viscosity and pressure. While I anticipate that long term they will work on reducing the viscosity in diesel to improve fuel economy, this is a small company with limited resources. Why try to simultaneously develop two technologies that work on radically different scales when the science supports one approach and not another? This just seems like a shrewd decision supported by economic common sense and a scientific endorsement.
And I'm not letting you forget - still waiting for you to produce these peer-reviewed articles that prove the tech isn't there.
I have no idea what you are trying to insinuate. All of the charts indicate that there is a substantial improvement when the machine is on as opposed to it being off or unused. After all, page 11 seems pretty clear: "Test results indicate that the viscosity reduction device operated successfully and that the AOT 1.2V delivers improved performance over the original AOT 1.1 tested in October 2011 and AOT 1.2H tested in March 2012. Pipeline line-loss and pump motor power consumption were reduced for a given flow rate during the observed test. The device may hold potential for energy savings and increased pipeline flow rates for the oil production and transportation industry."
This cuts to my argument about peer review earlier. There is no reason why we shouldn't consider the DOE RMOTC or PRCI as peer review. There are independent people in the field judging that the expected effects are as advertised. Your plea for a true peer-reviewed academic article over the commercial applications of AOT is an impossible and unfair burden. Scientific journals aren't concerned with whether or not a company would be able to quickly manufacture enough units. These journals are making sure that the science is good. You ask for citations earlier, and I'd encourage you to just check out Tao's CV. However, to prevent you from just burying your head in the sand:
Tao, R. "Electrorheology for Efficient Energy Production and Conservation," Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures October 2011 vol. 22 no. 15 1667-1671
Hong Tang,Ke Huang, and R. Tao. "Electrorheology Improves Transportation of Crude Oil." Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures, October 2011; vol. 22, 15: pp. 1673-1676.
Hongyun Wang, Cheng Bi, Zhonghua Zhang, Junwu Kan, and Chunfu Gao. "An investigation of tensile behavior of magnetorheological fluids under different magnetic fields." Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures, March 2013; vol. 24, 5: pp. 541-547., first published on December 14, 2012
What is interesting about scanning through conversations about Tao's work is that the only criticism of his electrorheological work is concerned with the limits of the technology to improve combustion in 2008. This probably explains why we here so little about Elektra (an argument you raise so many times). The company knew that the science wasn't there yet, (but keep an eye out for Du, Tang, Huang, and Tao 2011 "An investigation of tensile behavior of magnetorheological fluids under different magnetic fields," to see there might be a future for Elektra that looks more like AOT). There is a scientific consensus that insofar as one attempts to control MRF with electric fields, there will be an observed reduction in pressure and viscosity.
So if your standard is "listen to the peer reviewers..." well, they've spoken. And if your argument shifts to "but we need real world tests..." they are done and agree with the science. So, I think I'll bounce it back to you - where's the peer-reviewed articles indicating that the science is bad?
Scientific validity is a funny thing. My question would be at what point does a claim become 'true' as opposed to 'warranted'? We point to studies by the DOE and PRCI as independently verifying the findings. I would be curious for you to show us those other instances where these organizations signed off on fanciful technology. At the very least, these studies indicate that we have warranted reasons for thinking the tech works.
I choose to link to this post of the many you made about your new-found USC energy pal, because you argue adoption of AOT is contingent upon peer reviewed data. Great idea! I encourage your friend to start working on a publishable article in the Journal of Physical Chemistry, the International Journal of Modern Physics, or Energy & Fuels to argue how AOT-style technology is impossible. Because all of those journals have published peer reviewed articles indicating Tao's research is sound. This, coupled with the previously discussed field testing, shows we already have a good stack of data on our side. Far larger than the ZERO peer reviewed articles you offer indicating that this technology cannot be successful.
Perhaps your friend needs to go back to school and start working on that Ph.D. because his analytic skills seem to be getting a bit rusty.
I largely agree with the thoughts Myrka made in his post earlier today. If you missed it, I would give it a read. I have lurked this (and other) forums for a while, but I suppose a formal "Hello!" is in order. I like his analogy about carrying out one's DD and making the purchase of something like a car, and the level of civility that goes along with this. The "ignore it until it goes away" approach regarding critics works well.
However, it's pretty clear that this metaphor only works so well for a situation like this. Sure, we aren't going to buy or sell OUR car solely based on what our neighbors say about it, but if someone else is trying to make the same decision we did (while we sit silently on the sidelines) they would be strongly dissuaded by those 'good Samaritans' who are warning us that we should save our money because this car is a lemon that both doesn't exist and will blow up in our face. One can imagine a scenario where someone is freshly finding out about STWA and only seeing the bashers bashing with no one defending the company. Such traders could easily be dissuaded by talk of SEC investigations, lack of any contracts or sales, or even unreputable Australian businessmen putting magnets in car engines.
We know these arguments are fallacious. But as the Seeking Alpha article and the subsequent short attacks shows, those of us who are invested in STWA have become increasingly sophisticated in both the history and the future of our company. In conversations with others I've got drinking the STWA Kool-aid, there was real worry over the Seeking Alpha arguments, but this has disappeared. This trend is also generally evident because each attack dips the pps less each time.
So, we could throw in the towel and wait for contracts to roll in. They will or won't appear independent of any public discussion about them. Certainly, we're not obligated to respond to every objection in every post, but at the same time those of us who are long on STWA shouldn't cede the ground to the bashers. Go look at the forum on yahoo to see what it looks like when those who are long don't defend the company. RB is almost that bad. But here, we have moderators. If there is going to be a safe space for conversations about our company, it's here. And I think we have an obligation to be the voice of reason for those who might stumble upon our humble company and decide whether or not they want to open a position.