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.
What phrase?
So when I showed you the quote of you saying exactly what you said you didn't say, what did you do? Changed the subject of course.
Good-bye.
Looks like someone needs to go to an anger management class. Over 300 words of venom is not healthy.
I have already addressed the question of whether crude oil is polar or not in great detail with you before.
You are confusing hydrocarbons with crude oil. [color=red]They are not the same thing![/color]
I will not waste any more time on this except to copy and paste a previous post of mine which addresses the subject.
As I See It
Re: None
Sunday, June 11, 2023 5:28:59 PM
Post# of 56279
Strangely, I find myself looking forward to the next deranged but weirdly entertaining post like the one below. It must be the fact free zone that the poster lives in.
In his own understated way Sano demands I :
Confusion reigns.
Once again, Sano attempts to criticize Dr. Tao. First he quotes Dr. Tao:
The first 37 words of your rebuttal are an ad hominem attack on me, usually the first sign of a losing argument. The bulk of your post is a straw man argument to deflected from the fact that you misstated that QS Energy didn't do a hydrostatic test with oil or even that oil could be used in a hydrostatic test.
You said:
Recently I have posted how important the AOT hydrostatic tests using oil and high voltage have been in recreating conditions close to those on a commercial pipeline. Push back from the usual suspects was immediate.
PumpersExposed said:
Snoop is the glue that holds us together.
I couldn't let this one go by. The passage you have quoted is from a July 2014 test while my post highlights a later test in Sept. of 2014. It should be emphasized that ATS ( a division of Cannon Instrument Co ) is an independent third party brought in to do the testing.
Thanks zerosum et. al.
Because I said that the design of the AOT is to slow crude oil as it passes through the AOT for proper treatment you are now saying::
I have addressed all of the nonsense in your next to the last post many times in the past. I'm not going to waste my time again. I will leave you with one question. If your claim is true that the science behind the AOT can't work because of some made up law of nature as well as all of the other problems you have innumerated, then what explains the results below from a test on the TransCanada Pipeline.
You specifically claimed the most recent test was done without oil in the AOT. That was wrong! No amount of dancing and misdirection will change that.
In the past you have specifically claimed crude oil was non-polar. That was wrong! In fact, now you are saying that crude can contain conductive trace compounds. Thank you for inadvertently owning your blunder.
You have specifically claimed that it is a "law of mother nature" that viscosity can't be changed without changing density. That was wrong! Richard Feynman would have laughed his a** off if you shared that with him.
It looks like you are the one "defending the indefensible".
I find it hilarious that Sano's most recent post attempts to make fun of QS Energy's CEO while completely botching the facts that are the basis for his criticism. Here is a quote from that post:
Happy New Year to Garbo2 and the rest of the QSEP community.
Pay close attention.
I said:
Please don't lie about what I said. Show me where I said "pipeline pump stations operate with laminar flows".
And yes, crude oil is polar just as all the articles I cited as proof indicated. And yes, it is the higher concentration of polar fractions that are primarily responsible for increases in crude oil viscosity (just as the articles I cited indicated). By reducing the viscosity of the polar fractions you will reduce much of the viscosity of heavier crude oil. That is what the AOT is designed to do. It does not matter how much of the total volume the polar fractions are. If they are responsible for a significant amount of the viscosity of the crude, then reducing their viscosity will have a significant impact on the overall viscosity of the crude oil.
I find it interesting that you have gone from saying that crude oil is non-polar to saying that "Small fraction contains polar element but it’s insignificant". I guess that is like being "a little bit pregnant".
Strangely, I find myself looking forward to the next deranged but weirdly entertaining post like the one below. It must be the fact free zone that the poster lives in.
To be fair, zerosum, there have been some concerning moments. Do you remember Vlad?...... Some time ago, during a bunch of insider buying, there were a lot of posts claiming this was all just part of an insider enrichment scheme. Then a mysterious recording surfaced exposing the real man behind the STWA curtain. The transcript of that recording is as follows:
zerosum,
While we are waiting for progress updates, it is interesting to look back at some of the the many reasons why we have chosen to invest in Applied Oil Technology. Below is a piece that discusses the confirmation of Tao's theoretical work via visual observation at the nano-scale level. As you may remember, they used small-angle neutron scattering at the National Institute of Standards and Technolgy to obtain data and photographic images of the changes in an oil sample after an electric current is applied. On the QSEP website is another article (under technology reports) that shows some of the photos at the nano level.
Sano says:
A promise from Sano:
The argument favoring trying to commercialize on a smaller scale first, can be seen most clearly by following the blue prototype throughout its development. The first test at the RMOTC resulted in viscosity reduction of approx. 13%. It was taken off the line and modified in 2 months time. The second test was run one month later with viscosity reductions of approx. 40%. It was taken off the line and modified again reinstalling on the line in another 2 months time. The third test was run within a month with results of approx. 56% reduction in viscosity. The modifications in China required only a few weeks. Every time the larger AOT 2.0 needs to be modified the time to complete the work and get back on the line is usually measured in years not a couple months. Success on smaller lines could have also brought in revenue to pursue larger pipelines without the share dilution we have suffered.
It has long been my contention that QSEP should have tried to perfect their technology on smaller 4 to 6 inch gathering lines first, then moving on to the larger mid-stream lines . I think that they would have been better off for a number of reasons not the least of which was a limited budget. Everything at a smaller scale would have been so much easier. I conveyed that message to management several times.
Quote from Sano:
Quote from Sano::
The statement quoted below is just a dumb lie:
Good to hear from you Myrka.
Just like the made up "law of mother nature" the statement quoted below also gets basic physics wrong.
Homebrew is just flat out wrong when he says that Dr. Bunting's last purchase of QSEP convertible notes, as detailed on his most recent FORM 4 filing, were "freebies" not paid for in cash. This is what he said:
You do know that I was not being serious?
Mr. Sano asked:
Where did I say anything about density?
Again...revolutions in technology do not remain hidden for decades. Especially ones that claims to alter and reduce viscosity without reducing density. This is a physical law of nature that Qsep will never be able to overcome. What WILL likely happen is that the role of AOT or whatever they choose to rebrand it as , will change from viscosity reduction to something else like a debottlenecking solution for areas of precipitate or some other niche application. The story will get extended another three to four years without much effort.
SoxFan asked:
So when is this thing going to work? Is there some pipeline willing to try this out? Year after year after year and excuse after excuse from some here means same old same old. I see another year of bull emanating from this scam of a company
There is nowhere else to go with this. Your "made up law of nature" can't be corroborated by anyone. Publication after publication state that there is no relationship between viscosity and density.
Have a nice day.
AISI
Quoting you;
Comparing Non ionic non conductive nonpolar multi batch hydrocarbons with a lab made species purposely engineered to achieve a specific result is the fallacy of your analogy.
"comparing Non ionic non conductive nonpolar multi batch hydrocarbons"
When you say:
The overwhelming majority of these engineered smart fluids demonstrate an “increase” in viscosity when current is applied not a decrease!
zerosnoop,
You make an excellent point that the hydrostatic test was more than a "simple leak test".
From QSEP's website:
The follow up hydrostatic test is designed to run a fully assembled AOT at near operational conditions. Since we are not installed on a pipeline, we will lack flow and pressure, but all other factors will be the same as a customer installation. Lastly, a field test with a development partner would be under both flow and pressure as final validation of the AOT. As we have not seen mechanical issues due to flow or pressure a successful hydrostatic test should be a good predictor of a successful field test. Therefore, the field test will be focused on validation of the beneficial effect of AOT on pipeline crude oil.
The hydrostatic test is a key step showing development partners we have overcome the issues we faced in the previous demonstration project.
There will be more points of information to follow as we get into January 2023.
Manster,
You have brought a smile to my face with those very wise words.
The following is a re-post of a previous message with a few changes.
The claim that viscosity can't be changed by an electric field without changing its density is easily dismissed.
THERE IS AN ENTIRE BRANCH OF PHYSICS DEVOTED TO "THE STUDY OF CHANGES IN VISCOSITY IN CERTAIN FLUIDS DUE TO THE PRESENCE OF AN ELECTRIC CHARGE". That field is called ELECTRORHEOLOGY.
From Wikipedia:
Electrorheological (ER) fluids are suspensions of extremely fine non-conducting but electrically active particles (up to 50 micrometres diameter) in an electrically insulating fluid. The apparent viscosity of these fluids changes reversibly by an order of up to 100,000 in response to an electric field. For example, a typical ER fluid can go from the consistency of a liquid to that of a gel, and back, with response times on the order of milliseconds.
Hint hydrocarbons are nonpolar and are not affected by a current like a ferrofluid or specifically engineered smart fluid.
In our broad definition, most fluids in nature are liquid suspensions. They can either be a fluid having solid particles suspended in a base liquid or a fluid made of different molecules: The large molecules are regarded as particles suspended in the base liquid, consisting of small molecules. Thus all kinds of crude oils, including paraffin base, asphalt base, and mixed base, are all suspensions
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.
"relies on a static proton scattering test that was conducted years ago to back up his clumping none sense theory’s!
A recent small-angle neutron scattering at the NIST Center for Neutron Research has confirmed this aggregation inside crude oil under a strong electric field[18]. As shown in Fig.2, with no electric field, the scattering is isotropic and sparse, indicating the particles are randomly distributed in the oil. Under an electric field of 250V/mm (middle), the scattering reveals short chains of particles aggregated along the field direction.When E =400V/mm,the neutron scattering signal clearly indicates that the short chain has a prolate spheroid shape.
Several years ago I got tired of reading posts that claimed the AOT could not possibly work because it violated some unspecified "law of nature". After pressing hard I was finally able to ascertain what the "law" being claimed by this poster actually was. Of course it was completely made up. I'm going to re-post what I wrote then. I'm sure there will be all kinds of misdirection rebuttal, but there is one thing for sure that you won't see and that is a link to a website or an article that corroborates this supposed "law of nature". If that link is not forth coming, then any rebuttal deserves the trash bin.
To corroborate what I am saying, just do a web search for "what is the relationship between viscosity and density".
The following is my post from a few years back:
The claim that Dr. Tao's theories are invalid because they violate some "physical law of nature" that you have just made up is hardly persuasive. You said:
Again...revolutions in technology do not remain hidden for decades. Especially ones that claims to alter and reduce viscosity without reducing density. This is a physical law of nature that Qsep will never be able to overcome.
There is no relationship between the viscosity and density of a fluid. While viscosity is the thickness or thinness of a fluid, density refers to the space between its particles......A liquid that is dense does not necessarily have to be viscous, and the opposite is also true. For example, honey is more viscous than saline water, but it is not as dense. Viscosity can be defined as the speed of the flow of a liquid. It is the measurement of the shape of molecules and the inter-molecular forces.