Another point, if we may draw this out a bit further. What Tao said in that interview, from which the APS and EurekAlert pieces were written, seems deliberately limited. However, what are the implications of that 75% drop in energy for the pump—does that mean with the pressure constant? Or did the pressure that was being applied to the oil also commensurately drop? This is where I sound like a neophyte (which I am), but I'm trying to imagine what's going on. The oil exits the pump station, hits the AOT, and quickly has its viscosity reduced and (possibly) its flow turned from turbulent to laminar (I guess we're waiting to confirm that one)... the result is that the pump, after that conformational change takes place, quickly stops working as hard, because it's not pushing against as frictionate a substance? The report makes clear that this stands for a given flow rate.
The power they use in the pumps is basically determined—as I understand it—by the maximum pressure that they are allowed by law but also by the efficiencies that can be obtained. For example if the flow is turbulent then there are diminishing returns for increasing pump pressure, and they must set the pressure at a certain economic sweet spot; whereas in laminar flow there is a linear correlation of pressure/flow (up until the legal limits of pressure allowed in the pipe).
The relevant section is here:
"People were amazed at the energy savings when we first tested this device. They didn't initially understand the physics," said Tao. "A second test with an independent company was arranged and found the same thing." Tests on a section of the Keystone pipeline found that the same flow rate could be achieved with a 75 percent reduction of pump power from 2.8 megawatts to 0.7 megawatts, thanks to the AOT device. The device itself uses 720 watts. (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-02/aps-sei022715.php)
Anyway, so I'm thinking the other implications of this is that the amount of additional flow that could be gained by turning the pump back up to its original value may be quite large. earth1, do you know the formula that expresses this relationship, and is it possible to plug these numbers into it (with some gaps in the other values we don't know...) to get a rough ballpark of how much additional flow they could reap if they turned the pump back up to its original value assuming laminar flow conditions?
And another angle: we may be able to eliminate the possibility that the flow was turbulent (in the example above) by simply checking to see how much the AOT would have had to reduce viscosity to pump that much oil at such a reduced pressure if the flow was turbulent. Depending on how the equations work out, it may be the case that it would require incredibly, ridiculously unviscous oil in a turbulent state to only require 25% of original pump to move as much as when the oil was at its original viscosity. Not sure I'm expressing this clearly but it's another angle to investigate the issue. My hunch is that I think we can eliminate the possibility that the flow in this instance was turbulent. How on earth could you otherwise drop pump pressure to 25% of the original value and still move as much hydrocarbon, if the stuff is swirling around inside the pipe and creating drag? Doesn't seem to make sense.
Assuming all this is true, this technology is totally insane.
The market will go completely crazy when the commercial and industrial implications of this start to be properly digested.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
