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?
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.
Thank you AISI, I wanted to post on reduced turbulence as one of the benefits of the AOT. You did a great job.
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.
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.
According to Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
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:
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.
We have discussed this before.
Earth1 19 Aug 2015
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
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
My favorite posts are from AS I See It
In his post #28931 :
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?
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.