Replies to post #12889 on QS Energy Inc (QSEP)

[moorea9]

a little more effort on his part, and he will grasp the notion of Patents .... lol

[PumpersExposed]

Actually, STWA has one of leading fluid physicists in the world, Dr. Rongjia Tao of Temple University, on its "team."

Can you qualify "leading fluid physicist" please? Exactly how does he get the title of "leading"? Here are some previous quotes on Tao's work, and from different people:

"This is essentially a case of a physicist, who may be very good in his sub-discipline, talking about a subject about which he is abysmally ignorant," - Harold Brooks


"Unfortunately, this paper has some serious deficiencies,and certain aspects of the experimental methodologies andanalysis require clarification: some of the statements are not entirely justified; description of the experiments and experimental protocols are not complete; and the results and conclusions are at odds with established knowledge. The paper gives the impression that the authors may not be familiar with physics and chemistry of combustion in general and internal combustion (IC) engine combustion technology in particular." - Omer Gulder

"this does not stand up to its claims"

"the physical explanation of a viscosity decrease is "full of holes"" - John Shrimpton

"The viscosity change is I think due to electrical forces present in the fluid biasing the viscosity measurement - poor experimental method. The viscosity will appear to decrease, but it is not decreasing," - John Shrimpton

"The other big problem I have is that they have used extremely old techniques to measure the [droplet] size distribution. This is something I used 25 years ago when there were no laser techniques available," - Wamadeva Balachandran

"Well we have the same ah.. kinda questions you’re asking.. and they’ve really have not been resolved yet. Um.. for some of those various points you’ve identified.. What’s your baseline? And ah.. if that in the way the test came together.. um.. I’m still not sure why a baseline wasn’t established because it was supposed to be.. but ah.. I think some of the DOE folks up there might have dropped the ball.. umm.. taking some of the basic.. just a.. of a.. recording some of the basic instrumentation and setting it up so actually.. you know.. tell what happened before you threw the switch…" - Michael Whelan

"Well it’s been a… protracted process to try to figure out what’s next if anything because if you.. and I think your analysis of that first test is.. is pretty good.. I mean it’s a lot of holes in it.." - Michael Whelan

"changing save the world… um kept changing their design and and a.. moving it around and.. basically ahh.. changing where and how you’d be able to test it so.." - Michael Whelan


.... and on and on.

a little more effort on his part, and he will grasp the notion of Patents .... lol

Please post the patents STWA holds on any of this.. or does Temple? There are 2 (TWO) patents that have been found for the AOT, that only cover the assembly (they themselves admit they cannot protect this) and the rest are for the ZEFs and every other sham before. Question is, why do they keep promoting the total number of patents, the vast majority of them useless?

However, the mere presence of patents doesn't indicate or refute statistically the economic validity of the AOT product techniques.

Exactly... anything could be patented, working or not. Just another way STWA sucks buyers in trying to sound legit, or that they have something legit.

$5.2 million in R&D is a pittance, as is suggested before. Therefore, it should at least raise eyebrows, how on earth such a low figure can produce the greatest energy application since the beginning of time.

In 2013 TCPL spent $22 million on pipeline safety tech R&D that year ALONE.