QS Energy Inc (QSEP)

[Zizek]

No, not really odd at all. You're trying to compare a peer-reviewed scientific study with a PR piece on Scribd published by STWA. It is plausible that this is the same experimental method that the PR piece is talking about in 2010, but I'm not sure why this is a knock against his work? It's more a reality of how scientific publishing works. I flagged Tao and Xu (2006) as important as this functioned as the first lab proof of concept report, but they only tested the viscosity reductions in the provided fuel samples and were unable to confirm why they were seeing measured reductions.

In 2009 Evdokimov and Kornishin publish a critique of Tao's work from 2006-2008, arguing they were unable to replicate the viscosity reductions. However, it was telling that their conclusion reads: "However, unbiased experiments increasingly report evidence that magnetic treatment may significantly alter the colloidal properties of asphaltenes and paraffins in crude oils. Further research is needed to reveal the true molecular nature of these effects."

Perhaps in 2010, but first published about the article 'officially' forthcoming, is the peer-reviewed publication that the neutron scattering confirms viscosity reductions occur because of the reasons hypothesized by Tao. It is no longer a matter of two teams having a stack of data that doesn't agree with the other. Today we can actually see particles clumping together, and how they do this differently at different voltage levels. As an aside, it's probably worth considering that the IF of Fuel is significantly better than Energy & Fuel, which is where Tao and Xu (2006) and Evdokimov and Kornishin (2009) were both published. So if the basic scientific and methodological principles are so incorrect, it seems odd that a more prestigious journal would be publishing the findings.

But yes, it's all in a lab, and as I noted previously this article will do little to convince those who are on the fence, but that causes me to question where reasonable doubt ends. It's entirely possible that there are limits in scaling the technology to big busy pipelines, or that the leadership team does a poor job commercializing the technology. However, it does provide a conclusive empirical answer to the question of whether or not the physics is right.