Doing reverse number searches reeks of desperation. I would have thought he’d try to research the difference between “lose” and “loose” instead, but judging by some of his recent posts I see that still hasn’t happened. Maybe one day…

“This initiative will commence with customer contracts expected to be finalized in August/September 2024, followed by the expected deployment of the AOT device in Q42024-Q12025.”

Reading is hard…that said, doubtful this timeline holds true.

This didn’t take long to not age well…

LOL the only “weary souls” appear to be you, sano and sox since that’s all you all yap about. The rest of us know how to read and understand what the word intention means.

Key words being “if anything” which means you don’t know and your post like others hold no validity.

Don’t worry, he said in his statement that there would be more “in the coming weeks,” which as we all know could mean anywhere between 2 weeks and 27 years.

And? Assuming your statement is true, is QSEP the only company to ever pay for a publication? Newsflash: IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME! What does this have to do with anything??? Great post!

Oh, well look at that, you found it! I guess I should just stick my foot in my mouth. Disregard my post below then. Now, who to believe…..a scientist who has his doctorate at an accredited university….or an average joe on a message board. Gosh…who to believe……..

Technically…TECHNICALLY…you’re wrong, again. It was actually documented that when treated oil hours past treatment still showed a higher viscocity reduction than untreated oil. I’m tired of searching through articles over and over to prove you wrong (again), and I’m a firm believer in not providing information others aren’t willing to search themselves…so you go ahead and find it. Or don’t. But I’ll give you a little hint to help you get started…you ready? It was definitely published after the 1940’s.

“Mother Nature cannot be deceived yet the same claims of efficacy have been posted snd reposted on the board for a decade and the company has zero to show for it..”

Let’s stop calling it “mother nature” because you’re just embarassing yourself. The company has the results to show that the science and technology does in fact work. These have been published numerous times. The company has zero to show for it (as in sales) YET because the engineering has been subpar to say the least…that is, up until now.

Big difference between the science and engineering, the amazing part of this is that some individuals don’t seem to understand that very basic principle.

The company is on the right path. They have worked extensively with their own and outside engineering firms to ensure this rebuild was done the right way to show what the device can do on a line. I sure wouldn’t want to be affiliated with a diluent company right now…….

Acquired some more shares today on that beautiful dip. Someone will surely be sorry for that stock drop yesterday.

Amazing there are individuals wasting their time on a page who aren’t invested. Imagine living a life with nothing better to do with your time!

I am locked and loaded…the future sure is bright with this company!

Please continue posting. I would like to buy more below my average cost before this thing skyrockets.

Thanks!

If there is one good thing (aside from the laughs) the nay-sayers have on here it’s providing me with a nice sum of shares from those who fall prey to the lies and misinformation.

The shareholders who own more than 30M shares and continue to acquire (who haven’t sold one share btw), it’s important to remember those individuals can sell for a number of reasons…but they only buy for one. That’s the most important thing to take note.

How low do you think we’ll go before the next “breaking news” is released? All that high volume traffic recently sure has been painting a picture. I’ll say $.025 within 6-8 weeks…give or take.

What’s the O/U on when the next update comes out?

I believe the AOT works.

I‘m a long with my average cost more than doubled today, and they don’t have sales…yet. Imagine the dough I’ll make when they do.

Help me out, is it as embarassing or more embarassing to post on a forum constantly that you’d be “embarassed” to own shares in?

That’s rhetorical, you don’t have to respond since we all know the answer, even though we know you still will.

And fyi, you shouldn’t “encourage” anyone to buy any type of stock ever. This alone shows how much you know.

Once again, no one on here is discrediting that previous management and engineering personnel have been anything but dismal. That has been the primary issue within the years. I have been frustrated in this as I’m sure many, if not all, other investors have been. I am highly optimistic that is not the case any longer.

So let’s see what sounds rational. Sano continues to discredit the science with papers published during the stone age instead of researching current and factual publications that have been provided numerous times on this board by myself and others which are continuously ignored. The answer here is obvious.

Yeah zerosnoop, what an excellent point being the one stating, on your own, that the hydrostatic test is more than just a simple leak test. You sure are wise beyond your years to think of such a remarkable statement by yourself (wink wink).

Things will be getting very interesting very soon for this company. Big days are ahead!

As I See It, I think I speak for all of us when I say we are only interested in articles published in the 1940’s that hold no significant value and is outdated to the technology of QSE instead of your sound information that makes sense and is backed by published scientists and researchers.

I appreciate your insights and information here. I feel like you’re taking the word “now” out of context, but to your credit they probably should have worded that differently as this company has never rushed anything. However, I don’t disagree. I have my suspicion they ran into issues as I’m sure many other individuals who follow this company believe also. My hope is that they are addressing and correcting said “issues” so that once the demonstration testing rolls around it’s primed and ready to go.

I’ve been a shareholder since 2003/2004 or so when the SP was $3.25 (ahh the good ol days). Since then I have continuously invested and hold a very generous sum of shares (fyi I never advise others on what to invest, that’s simply bad practice), went through all the changes, lies, so on and so on you mentioned, and haven’t sold one share. Why? Some would say insanity (and perhaps they’re right)…but because I believe in the technology. I love when I read how one poster mentions going against “mother nature” as if ‘she’ has anything to do with this. It’s the laws of physics which this technology is backed by plenty of extensive studies and is shown effective (a simple online search shows plenty of evidence). The problem has been poor management and shoddy engineering. But I don’t believe that’s the case anymore…which is reasoning to why I said give them a chance.

This is still a company with a ton of potential that could have a massive upside…hopefully this team can get it done.

Well, sure…because that’s the timeline they reported in the July update. I have never conducted a hydrostatic test so I’m not sure the prep work that goes in to getting one completed. Do you?

I also don’t know the timeline regarding how long such hydrostatic test should take. Do you?

Now, if history is repeating itself (which it very well could be), then yeah I expect to hear some type of explanation why it didn’t work or what the delay is…or whatever other excuse they come up with.

Bigger and McMullen are irrelevent to QS now, so why are they being mentioned? And how did that work out for them anyway? Wonder why they would try to steal a patent for a technology that “didn’t work”…hmm talk about common sense. Clearly that just shows the level of interest the AOT would generate once she’s up and running.

Give these guys a chance. They have a very smart engineer in Dr. Gallagher and engaged a 3rd party engineering firm to validate and consider new designs and materials. Not to mention a CEO who has brought in substantial working capital to keep the company current and continue moving testing forward. And let’s not forget the abundance of major investments and note conversions…to which all of these individuals are still fully invested and continue converting/investing.

Well…the July update said the test would be conducted in mid-September…not completed in mid-September.

In no way am I defending them because I still find it off-putting to not have heard SOMETHING by now…but as I stated I don’t necessarily know how long a full-sized hydrostatic test should take.

It’s promising the component test was successful since this is where they had issues in the previous demonstration. I remain confident they are on the right path to a successful operating AOT.

In the July 18, 2022 update (linked below) it was stated that the component test would be sometime in August (which I believe it was) and the hydrostatic test would be targeted for mid-September. While I’m not entirely sure how long a full-sized hydrostatic test would take, I am willing to give them the benefit that it’s realistically only been a month (based on this timeline) and remain hopeful good news will come out soon.

That said, I’m also hopeful history is not repeating itself yet again. They were quick to release the positive component test, so it’s a little concerning why they wouldn’t be so quick to release results of the hydrostatic test (assuming it’s completed).

https://s3.amazonaws.com/content.stockpr.com/qsenergy/files/news/2022/QS_Energy_Upcoming_Component_Testing_July_2022.pdf

Exactly what I’ve been saying.

Confirmed POSITIVE demonstration tests + sales = proven

Yet here we are, another week with no update. Could history be repeating itself again? Tune in next week to maybe find out…or maybe not find out.

“Noboooody knows the trouble we’ve seen. Nobooooooody knows our sorrows.”

Zerosnoop,
Thank you for responding and not deleting. As I have mentioned, a successful component test does NOT indicate the AOT is “working as advertised.” It is, however, a significant step in the right direction, and is a great feat that the issues from the past are being resolved. We can call it “working as advertised” once a successful demonstration test is announced and orders start coming in (which hopefully is in the near term). Let’s not be misleading.

Quick Sand,
You are right in the fact that previous management/leadershit (great term) have steered this company in the direction it is in today. It seems as though they are finally taking the necessary measures to get the AOT operational and correct past mistakes. Dr. Gallagher appears to have a good understanding and engaging a 3rd party engineering firm validates their willingness to get this thing off the ground.

Looking forward to the future!

Where can we find the publication that the AOT is proven to work as advertised?

Yep, I hate to say it, but I’d be surprised as well. Typically things get quiet for a while before the “not-so-good” news spills.

Glad to see Cecil got some additional capital but let’s not spin that into anything more than what it actually is…more dilution. At least there’s money to correct whatever the setback is (assuming there is one, who knows…because as usual we’re left in the dark).

I’ll be here still waiting……….good luck to all!

Can someone explain the Cardano talk? Is there something I missed? Last I checked this was a QS Energy forum. I want to see this stock succeed just as much as the next guy, but come on…let the non-believers have their fun…it wont last much longer.

Also, can we get the messaging above updated? Lane hasn’t been the CEO for over a year now. We have time to repost the same thing over and over and discuss other investment losses but not update personnel changes.

Soon we’ll have the successful results of the hydrostatic test and then the successful results of the demonstration test. I know I’ve been adding to my position. Things are getting exciting…good luck everyone!!!

I’m confused, how can it be a successful test? I thought the “laws of physics” couldn’t be “bent?” I guess it’s a good thing I don’t get my information from anyone other than the pro’s.

Certainly wouldn’t want to be short on this! And I most certainly wouldn’t want to not own any shares…that would be…how do you say…pathetic. :)

Buying more at our bargain price!

How much has he sold? How much has any major SH or BOD member sold?

Why is it taking so long to get some news? I’ve been here since 2004 so trust me, I’m used to this. BUT…the last report seemed like things were (finally) moving in the right direction. You mean to tell me within the past few months since that release there has been nothing to report? Nothing at all? I am optimistic and hoping that this “no news is good news” but judging from the previous release I figured we’d hear SOMETHING by now.

Bueller………..Bueller…….???

You’re right. The test results they provided from the prototype at the RMOTC field don’t matter. That’s all hogwash. The fact that Temple is still involved doesnt matter. That’s all smoke in mirrors. The fact that all major investors are still here and haven’t sold a dime is a complete sham and doesnt matter at all. The fact that Dr. Gallagher is still here and still trying to work through the engineering process with provided funding is all bologna. I’ve heard them all. I still don’t care. I understand the frustration shareholders have, I experience the same. However, if and when this product goes to market, it will be huge. Time will tell…good luck to all, even the haters!

You don’t think that particular oil company is interested in a product that would significantly decrease their energy expenditures, while at the same time transporting more product?? Wow…that’s interesting. If the tests from the commercialized unit are anything like the results from the prototype, you better bet your a$$ this and any other oil company will be lined up at the door with cash in hand. But yeah, saying “no thanks not interested” prematurely before commercialized results are finalized makes sense too……….

When an auto manufacturer releases a prototype version of a car/truck/whatever they intend to build, does the final design look identical to the prototype? Of course not. Why? Because the prototype is designed to test and get a scalable market size before commercializing (among other things). Then various design changes are taken for various reasons (address test issues, improvements, maximize cost, etc.) to commercialize and sell. This shouldn’t be news to anyone. There is a start-up electric vehicle company a town over from me that is doing the exact same thing as I speak. I’m as frustrated as anyone else here (been here since 2004), but once the kinks are worked out and the unit runs as designed we’ll be sitting pretty, and I believe that time will come. Until then, GLTA!