×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Weatherford Acquires ClearWell Technology

Weatherford Acquires ClearWell Technology

Weatherford Acquires ClearWell Technology

(OP)
*****Scale Treatment*****......**News Flash**

Weatherford Intl. Inc. has introduced its ClearWELL electronic scale-treatment system (Fig. 1)........ The device is attached to the casing or wellhead with a ferrite clamp and emits a 120-kHz signal. ....

http://www.spe.org/spe/jpt/jsp/jptmonthlysection/0,2440,1104_1585_6776890_6777212,00.html

Now, carefully review the picture of the Hydropath unit:

http://www.hydroflow.force9.co.uk/images/aquaklear.jpg
http://www.hydroflow.force9.co.uk/

After comparing the pictures, does anyone on this forum think that the "ClearWell" device is anything but a rebadged Hydropath/Hydroflow electronic scale buster? Check out the pictures.

Looks like the same bolts, fitting, and cheap strap to me.

"To achieve this flow of electrons in the plumbing system a voltage must be generated in the water in the direction of the pipe."

Does anyone think this is worthy of Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman?

RE: Weatherford Acquires ClearWell Technology

(OP)
This was a very interesting find:

Question: Why would Weatherford International enter into an exclusive agreement with a PWT manufacturer!
 
The press releases clearly states that Weatherford International has entered into an "exclusive agreement" to license using and distributing "ClearWELL Technology" which by all research seems to be very similar to "Hydropath Technology", perhaps in an explosion-proof product version.

On second thought, maybe it is not explosion proof since it appears to be a NEC violation from the picture!

It also says that they spent "OVER A MILLION DOLLARS & 18 MONTHS" researching it!

On second thought, maybe they did not since the following link is a year old and shows that some of the search was done on the internet:

http://www.frenchcreeksoftware.com/_fcsdg/000000bf.htm

I guess the "chem1" site is right when it clearly states that this technology is "bunk"!

Poor Weatherford. They certainly must have been deceived into believing this technology could work...

How could this happen? Please, someone explain how something like this could happen!

RE: Weatherford Acquires ClearWell Technology

I own one of these silly things, in my home.  I paid $300+ for it, six years ago, and have run it continuously.  I have never noticed one bit of less scaling.

Conveniently, on page 9000 or so of the O&M, it says something to the effect that running standard hardness test will NOT prove effectiveness one way or the other.  I wondered this when I bought it: if you aren't removing the cations, how could an H test (which is just detecting said cations) be used?

Signature under construction, sorry about the mess - Steve

RE: Weatherford Acquires ClearWell Technology

Hi Ya'al

From a recent call I made to to Weatherford to check into this (anyone can make a phone call you know), it seems that they are deploying this product AT THEIR OWN COST everywhere they can.

Why would they do this if it were not working for them?

Why would they negotiate an exclusive agreement after testing it for nearly 2 years, and spending over a million bucks in research?

Maybe they know s little more than ya'all do?
A MILLION DOLLARS buys a good bit of research folks!

The bottom line is that the next time you go to an oil well, chances are good that you will see one of these units...

H2OGirl

RE: Weatherford Acquires ClearWell Technology

(OP)
Watergirl, you can't be serious.

If the magnet devices actually worked, it would put the chemical treatment division of Weatherford out of business at a net loss of revenue. It would make better business sense to just close down the entire chemical treatment business than try to sell magnets for 500 bucks a piece. There are also hundreds of businesses trying to sell those magnets, so it is not like the magnets are going to be a profitable business.

Did you miss the link above? From the post, it doesn't appear that the Weatherford Business Manager who is in charge of the clearwell magnet division knows much about magnets if he had to put out a SOS for help like that.

RE: Weatherford Acquires ClearWell Technology

Hi Again,

Why should we make the assumption that Weatherford will not continue to use chemical treatments for other applications? It appears that they are using the ClearWELL technology for a specific application.

It also appears that they have tried and tested a number of other technologies as well, and choose to go with this technology due to the success they had with this specific technology, for this specific application.

I would also think that an organization as large as Weatherford would have the resources available to run a budget analysis to determine the overall effect on their company before making such a decision. Maybe they were thinking that including this product with their equipment for this process operation would give them a distinct advantage over their competition? The fact that they negotiated an exclusive agreement lends to this assessment.

It will be interesting to see how this develops.

H2OGirl

RE: Weatherford Acquires ClearWell Technology

(OP)
Hydropath is not selling any "technology".

Statement such as

"V is the voltage generated by the ferrite ring and, I is the accelerated charge generated due to the standing wave."


"This voltage difference between the extremities of the plumbing system is caused by a substantial flow of electrons from one end to the other of the system."

"Fig.2 represents the position at T1 on Fig.1 and Fig. 3 represent the position at T2 on Fig.1. To achieve this flow of electrons in the plumbing system a voltage must be generated in the water in the direction of the pipe. This is achieved by utilising a high frequency transformer. This transformer consists of a ferrite ring around the water pipe. A primary coil is wound around the ferrite ring. Any conductor, the water and the pipe (if it is a conductive material) will form parallel secondary windings of the transformer. The signal that is fed to the primary coil is a high frequency diminishing wave with random wait periods. This wave is designed to allow the formation of seed crystals for a variety of crystal forming salts that may be present in the water."

are gobbledygook and preposterous.

See the post regarding evapco to see how things are going.

RE: Weatherford Acquires ClearWell Technology

Since this Forum does not belong to H2OGirl I can post here without her deleting it or questioning my right to post as she does on her "other" Forum.

Look at the posting here by LHA.  There is many others who have told me the same thing and I have in many locations seen the same no results.  

If H2OGirl believes they are selling a product at their own cost and she still believes the product performs as they say then she is pretty gullible.  Though she infers here and at her "other" forum that she is not promoting the technology she sure seems totally favorable to it.  

I, for one of many in the water treatment business, cannot support that or any other PWT technology claims unless and until those claims are certified by a disinterested, qualified testing facility.

Gary Schreiber, CWS VI
The Purolite Co.

RE: Weatherford Acquires ClearWell Technology

Hi again,
First, I would like to thank GarySCWSVI for the plug for our "Water Treatment:New & Alternative Technologies Group" here on Eng-Tips. The purpose for the group, and rules for posting are pretty well documented. In any case, I feel that GarySCWSVI has been a great asset to the group, and look forward to his continued participation.

If any posts were deleted, it could be for one of two reasons:

1. I felt the post was out of line or opinionated, didn't meet the criteria of having supportive documentation, or was in some way argumentative.

2. Someone red-flagged the post or Eng-Tips deleted the post. (this has happened a bit as well, in fact some of my own posts have been deleted this way. Eng-Tips has the final say of what remains on the forum)

I would also like to clear up my previous statement regarding Weatherford deploying the ClearWELL technology.

Quote (H2OGirl):

it seems that they are deploying this product AT THEIR OWN COST everywhere they can.

Quote (GarySCWSVI):

If H2OGirl believes they are selling a product at their own cost and she still believes the product performs as they say then she is pretty gullible.

At some point, and perhaps even now, I'm sure that Weatherford intends to realize earnings from use of this technology. (they would not have negotiated an exclusive agreement if this were not the case) It is indicated that the 18+ months of testing was done at their own cost. The press release indicates that they spent over $1 million in testing in the field, and in their lab.

I would assume that higher future earnings for Weatherford could be achieved in a couple ways:
1. Increased sales of equipment due to higher feasibility/lower overall project costs.
2. Increased sales due to having an edge over their competition due to better technologies being employed.
Both of these could be achieved without increasing base systems cost.

Quote (GarySCWSVI):

Though she infers here and at her "other" forum that she is not promoting the technology she sure seems totally favorable to it.

I am favorable to ANY new technology that:
1. Fills a need
2. Is cost effective
3. Solves a problem
4. Is environmentally friendly

Quote (GarySCWSVI):

I, for one of many in the water treatment business, cannot support that or any other PWT technology claims unless and until those claims are certified by a disinterested, qualified testing facility.

I would consider Weatherford International as meeting the criteria of being a "disinterested, qualified testing facility". I see no reason to suspect Weatherford of falsifying their claims regarding testing of this technology. To think that Weatherford would perpetuate such a fraud would be ludicrous in my mind.  

Since opinions are okay here on this forum, perhaps GarySCWSVI could explain why he thinks that Weatherford would falsify their tests, or why he doesn't feel that they are a "disinterested, qualified testing facility"?

H2OGirl

RE: Weatherford Acquires ClearWell Technology

(OP)
watergirl,

These are examples of study reports from  "disinterested parties" using "qualified testing facilities".

http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/ARMYCOE/PWTB/pwtb_420_49_34.pdf

http://www.aquacraft.com/Download%20Reports/Calfed%20Report.pdf

Unless you can come up with something similar, your posts fall in the "out of line or opinionated, didn't meet the criteria of having supportive documentation, or was in some way argumentative" category that you so disdain.

Weatherford appears to have no documentation of those millions supposedly spent on research.

To use the famous movie line, it's time to "show me the money".



RE: Weatherford Acquires ClearWell Technology

I can spend a million dollars buying a bunch of typewriters and keeping a bunch of monkeys in a room. Doesn't mean I'll have the works of Shakespeare at the end of the year. The money spent doesn't equate to the value of the reasearch.

RE: Weatherford Acquires ClearWell Technology

Hi again everyone,

1. I noticed that none of the above links point to any studies conducted by Weatherford, nor the technology they conducted testing with. (this thread topic)

2. I would assume that Weatherford has most likely kept this information confidential for the time being, for their own reasons. It is a very competitive market.

Quote (kchayfie):

I can spend a million dollars buying a bunch of typewriters and keeping a bunch of monkeys in a room. Doesn't mean I'll have the works of Shakespeare at the end of the year. The money spent doesn't equate to the value of the research.
What purpose does comparing magnets to this technology, Weatherford employees to monkeys, or Weatherford's lab equipment to typewriters, serve? I would think that they are quite well equipped in the area of qualified staff and good testing equipment.

Seems to me that if Weatherford had posted a news release telling about how successful they were with a new "chemical" solution, many of you would be all for it, and embrace it without question. Why the disparity? Why do some members seem mad at Weatherford about this, or skeptical of their findings? Did they cancel an order for some "other" equipment or something? Were some of you offering them a different technology which got sacked?

It seems odd that some of you would take such a stance against Weatherford when many of you probably do a good bit of business with them regarding other equipment. I don't do ANY business with Weatherford, nor does the agency I work for (to my knowledge), but I still give them the benefit of a doubt for making this decision. I see no good reason not to.

H2OGirl

RE: Weatherford Acquires ClearWell Technology

(OP)
*******Newsflash to watergirl:********

Nobody that I know of has an axe to grind with Weatherford. The simple fact is that the Weatherford device:

http://www.spe.org/spe/jpt/jsp/jptmonthlysection/0,2440,1104_1585_6776890_6777212,00.html

is identical to the Hydropath device (with a new Weatherford label):

http://www.hydroflow.force9.co.uk/images/aquaklear.jpg

Even a novice like Patrick is able to see the devices are identical. "Looks like the same bolts, fitting, and device to me, Spongebob".

What's more is that these are basically the same devices used by all of the scammers such as dolphin, frieje, etc.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck"


RE: Weatherford Acquires ClearWell Technology

H2O:
Why do some members seem mad at Weatherford about this, or skeptical of their findings?

LHA:
I've never heard of Weatherford; still haven't in any other context, except for this Forum.  Ergo, I have never tried to do business with, or get a job, from Weatherford.  I have nothing against them.  I also support any effort for non-chemical treatment of water, wastewater, air and soils.  BUT only if they work.  I have no knowledge of, and therefore, no opinion, either way regarding the effectiveness of Weatherford's products.  But bimr's and Gary's info looks compelling, and I do have a gadget on my 2" PVC Domestic service, and it claims to be some magical electromagnet, and it cost a lot, and it doesn't appear to be doing anything.  If Weatherford has something different, great, all the best.  If they are selling another magical electromagnet, let others beware.

Signature under construction, sorry about the mess - Steve

RE: Weatherford Acquires ClearWell Technology

(OP)
The impossible physics of standing waves

A UK company's (Hydropath Ltd.) page describes a fanciful scheme that manages to violate several laws of physics at once! A ferrite ring that encircles the water pipe induces a 200 kHz standing "sign" [sic] wave that is supposed to produce a flow of electrons between the opposite ends of the plumbing system (so much for Faraday's laws of electromagnetic induction, not to mention that electrons do not flow through aqueous solutions!)

As near as I can tell from their technical explanation, the oppositely-charged hardness ions are drawn in opposite directions so as to collide with each other and form clumps, rendering the remainder of the water unsaturated so that any scale already present will redissolve. The only problem is that the drift velocities of hydrated ions in solution are so minute that none of this would happen even if it were possible to produce this kind of electric field along the water column.

http://www.chem1.com/CQ/aquacrack.html#HFLO

http://www.chem1.com/CQ/gallery.html

RE: Weatherford Acquires ClearWell Technology

Wow, that was interesting, so let's dissect it!

"ferrite ring that encircles the water pipe induces a 200 kHz standing "sign" [sic] wave"
I'm going to throw out my SWR meter right now! Seems that radio should not even exist!

"so much for Faraday's laws of electromagnetic induction"
So there can be no such thing as a coupled inductor, right? Just how do those darn generators work?

"not to mention that electrons do not flow through aqueous solutions!"
Gee, i should quit putting water in my lead-acid batteries then. Hmmm, just how do THOSE darn things work then?

I'll be sure to go to the chem1 site for my next chemistry lesson. Wait, maybe he has a physics class too?

Quote (bimr):

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck"

As for the Chem1 site, I might be tempted to say "Quack-quack!".

H2OGirl

RE: Weatherford Acquires ClearWell Technology

After taking some time and looking over more of the Chem1 site, I would probably agree with perhaps 99% of his findings which I've looked at. Most of the devices are most likely complete nonsense.

I just can't seem to agree so quickly with this one "debunking" in particular, at least not for the reasons stated.

I have no reason to think it would not be possible to induce a signal on a fluid stream, at least. What overall effect it would have I can not say for sure.

If I end up getting pie in the face over it, so be it. I'll be the first to admit I'm wrong.

H2OGirl

RE: Weatherford Acquires ClearWell Technology

Let's forget ferrite rings for a moment (is that a circle of weasles?)

I do have a gadget on my 2" PVC Domestic service, and it claims to be some magical electromagnet, and it cost a lot, and it doesn't appear to be doing anything.

Please, fellow 'Tipsters, don't buy an magical electromagnet.  Thank you.

Signature under construction, sorry about the mess - Steve

RE: Weatherford Acquires ClearWell Technology

(OP)
Watergirl,

The Chem 1 site is correct. Read carefully.


Regarding "Sign wave"

Chem 1 is laughing because Hydropath's technical website actually says "sign" wave instead of "sine" wave:

"Fig.1 shows a sign wave of 200 KHz....."
http://www.hydroflow.force9.co.uk/theory.htm

This is actually an English or spelling lesson.


 

Regarding "Faraday's law"
Faraday's law is a fundamental relationship which comes from Maxwell's equations. It serves as a succinct summary of the ways a voltage (or emf) may be generated by a changing magnetic environment.

The difference: Faraday's law states that a voltage is generated not that electrons flow through an aqueous solution.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/farlaw.html

I believe that this is the physics lesson that you requested.



Regarding "aqueous"

aqueous Definition: Any solution in which water (H2O) is the solvent.

electrolyte Definition: A substance which forms ions in an aqueous (water) solution.

http://www.av8n.com/physics/lead-acid.htm

The difference: Electrons flow through electrolyte solutions, not aqueous solutions.

I believe that this is a physics lesson and maybe a little chemistry. (Refresher Physics Course)



Regarding "Coupled conductors"

Coupled conductors are the basis of the transformer not the  generator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductance

http://science.howstuffworks.com/electricity2.htm


Also a physics lesson (Advance Class)

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck"

PS Are you planning to leave an address for the delivery of the pie?

RE: Weatherford Acquires ClearWell Technology

Okay, so is my tap water an "aqueous solution", or "electrolyte solution"?

In either case, we should be able to see if "electrons  flow through it" fairly easy:

1. Fill a glass tube with tap water, (let's say with a TDS of 100ppm)
2. Plug each end with a rubber stopper.
3. Insert a nail or other conductor through the rubber stoppers on each end.
4. Put a signal (in this case, let's use 60hz) across the fluid column. (hot to one end, ground to the other)
5. Use an amp meter to detect current.

Are you saying electrons will not flow through it?
Or did the water suddenly become an electrolyte?

Please explain.

Or here is another high-tech experiment for you.

1. Fill tub with water (or other aqueous solution handy).
2. Step in.
3. Have a lab helper drop a plugged in curling iron into tub.
4. Report your findings back to us after your hospital visit. If you tell us what hospital you are in, we'll send you some pie. Of course, if electrons do not flow through the aqueous solution, you will be fine, and you can send me the pie.

Case in point: I see no reason to think it would not be possible to induce a signal into a fluid column (unless it is distilled water).

Excuse me, I'm kind of thirsty so I'm going to get a drink of "electrolyte solution".

H2OGirl

RE: Weatherford Acquires ClearWell Technology

(OP)
If you daytime gig as a rocket scientist does not work out, you might try you hand as a copy writer for a manufacturer of one of the quack devices. Like the manufacturers of these devices, you appear to have the ability to name drop a simple concept such as Faradays law and then to extrapolate the concept into all sorts of fanciful notions.

Conductivity of a substance is defined as 'the ability or power to conduct or transmit heat, electricity, or sound'. Its units are Siemens per meter [S/m] in SI and micromhos per centimeter [mmho/cm] in U.S. customary units.

In water and ionic materials or fluids a net motion of charged ions can occur. This phenomenon produce an electric current and is called ionic conduction.

Pure water is not a good conductor of electricity. Ordinary distilled water in equilibrium with carbon dioxide of the air has a conductivity of about 10 x 10-6 W-1*m-1  (20 dS/m). Because the electrical current is transported by the ions in solution, the conductivity increases as the concentration of ions increases. Thus conductivity increases as water dissolved ionic species.

http://www.lenntech.com/water-conductivity.htm

However, if the voltage is high enough electrons will bridge the gap, even in a vacuum. Think of lightning through air.

http://scienceathome.cienciaviva.pt/conduti_agua_eng.html


So how does one explain the application of these magnetic devices in all waters and applications without accounting for the conductivity of the water.

RE: Weatherford Acquires ClearWell Technology

Hi bimr,
No need to get "testy". (a little pun here)

I missed you <sic> point somewhere.

Quote (bimr):

you might try you hand as a copy writer

I thought we were "debunking" this technology because the basic principles of physics do not allow for a signal (standing sine wave) to be induced on a fluid column?

Do you believe it is possible to induce a signal on a typical fluid column? (such as the water we find in most facilities).

A simple yes/no answer will do. (however this is not what we will probably get)

H20Girl

RE: Weatherford Acquires ClearWell Technology

(OP)
Yes, it is possible. For instance, magnetic flowmeters measure flow via magnetic coils powered by either alternating current (AC) or direct current (DC). When the current powers the coils, a magnetic field is created in the area of the flowing liquid. When conductive liquid flows through a magnetic field, a voltage is generated that is directly proportional to the velocity of the fluid. The magmeter detects this voltage using electrodes that are typically positioned on either side of the pipe and computes flow velocity based on the amount of voltage present.

Have you ever heard one of the manufacturers of magmeter flowmeter claim that the magmeters change the properties of the water? No, not really.

While many substances undergo alignment of the atomic-level fields in response to an applied magnetic field, only ferromagnetic materials retain the atomic-level alignment when the applied field is removed.

Whether or not some magnetic water treatment effect actually exists is the further question and the answer is no.


RE: Weatherford Acquires ClearWell Technology

Better tell Weatherford before they waste any more money!

H2OGirl

RE: Weatherford Acquires ClearWell Technology

I'm going to say this, and then be done with it. (cheers everyone!)

After looking at the website posted by bimr above:

Quote (bimr):

"Fig.1 shows a sign wave of 200 KHz....."
http://www.hydroflow.force9.co.uk/theory.htm

Once we get past the typo, I can not see why the base theory of operation (as far as inducing the signal into the fluid column) could not be done in this way. This is why I can't agree with the chem1 site "debunking" in this case.

This also seems to be a KEY difference to ANY other PWT devices I've researched. I simply don't see how a typical coil device could do this. (that is to induce a significant signal into the fluid column.) Of course, a magnet could not possibly do this.

I also can't see why dissolved particles (ions & cations) could not be manipulated by applying a linear voltage along a fluid column. This doesn't seem to violate physics to me. Does it work to reduce scaling? I don't know, but I guess Weatherford thinks so.

Has this company found the secret to successful PWT? I don't know, but I can say it appears to be very different from the other technologies that I know of. Perhaps Weatherford agrees with this as well.

H2OGirl

RE: Weatherford Acquires ClearWell Technology

Once we get past the in-depth discussions of Faraday's Law  and sub-particle alignment and lots of other things that don't really matter, we can start offering examples of satisfied customers.  Until then...

I do have a gadget on my 2" PVC Domestic service, and it claims to be some magical electromagnet, and it cost a lot, and it doesn't appear to be doing anything.

Please, fellow 'Tipsters, don't buy an magical electromagnet.  Thank you.

Signature under construction, sorry about the mess - Steve

RE: Weatherford Acquires ClearWell Technology

(OP)
There are many reasons why the hydroflow theory of operation as presented by hydropath/hydroflow is completely bogus and will not work:

http://www.hydroflow.force9.co.uk/theory.htm

1. It is impossible to generate the sinusoidal wave that is shown on hydropath/hydroflow theory page using a transformer.

The only way to generate such a perfect sinusoidal curve is to use mechanical force to turn an electrical motor backwards.

If you generate such a sinusoidal curve using a switch mode device (using switching capacitors for example), the curve will not be a perfect sinusoidal curve as shown by hydropath/hydroflow.

2. If you assumed for the sake of argument that the hydropath/hydroflow device would work, whatever effect the device would have would stop completely when the water stops flowing or a valve is closed.

3. It is impossible to achieve a constant "standing wave" voltage across any plumbing system since the voltage obviously will vary with the distance away from the device. So even if the device could be made to function, whatever effect the device had would be muted the farther away that you went from the device.

4. Electromagnetic flow meters utilize Faraday's law for conductive fluids to measure flow. Faraday's law says that when a conductive liquid moves in a pipe with a velocity through a magnetic field, it will induce a voltage. E = BvDC where E is voltage,  v is average velocity, B is intensity of magnetic field, D is the length of conductor, and C is a constant depending on dimensional units.

Faraday’s law is the basis of theory for the development of magmeter technology.

On the contrary, hydropath/hydroflow 's theory states that when a conductive liquid moves in a pipe with a velocity through a magnetic field, the hydropath/hydroflow device will generate a voltage.

5. A high frequency transformer will also not generate a sinusoidal curve. Frequencies are usually between 20 and 100kHz:

http://schmidt-walter.fbe.fh-darmstadt.de/smps_e/trafo_hilfe_e.html#d-HFT


In summary, these devices are without a doubt, completely bogus. There is not a single controlled study showing positive results.

RE: Weatherford Acquires ClearWell Technology

Well, now I'm even more currious regarding this technology.

It's funny how two people can read the same material and get two completely different things from it:

Quote (bimr):

It is impossible to generate the sinusoidal wave that is shown on hydropath/hydroflow theory page using a transformer. The only way to generate such a perfect sinusoidal curve is to use mechanical force to turn an electrical motor backwards. If you generate such a sinusoidal curve using a switch mode device (using switching capacitors for example), the curve will not be a perfect sinusoidal curve as shown by hydropath/hydroflow.

Quote (Hydropath Site):

The signal that is fed to the primary coil is a high frequency diminishing wave with random wait periods.
This would not indicate that they claim a "perfect sinusoidal curve". My understanding is that the signal generated is described by the little blue "squiggly" in the diagram.

Quote (bimr):

If you assumed for the sake of argument that the hydropath/hydroflow device would work, whatever effect the device would have would stop completely when the water stops flowing or a valve is closed.
Why? This does not make sense to me. It seems to me that the electrical current would continue to flow regardless of whether the water is flowing. Conductive valves would not seem to stop the flow of electrons either(?) I agree that non-conductive valves would seem to be an issue.

Quote (bimr):

It is impossible to achieve a constant "standing wave" voltage across any plumbing system since the voltage obviously will vary with the distance away from the device. So even if the device could be made to function, whatever effect the device had would be muted the farther away that you went from the device.

Quote (Hydropath site):

If the source is 10V then the standing wave voltage will be [sin((60/375)*90)]*10 = 2.49V between one end of the plumbing system and the other.
This would indicate to me that they don't claim a "constant standing wave", and acknoledge that the voltage decreases with distance from the unit. The example used a system of 60m. They indicate 10v at source, and 2.49v at 60m in the example.

Quote (bimr):

hydropath/hydroflow 's theory states that when a conductive liquid moves in a pipe with a velocity through a magnetic field, the hydropath/hydroflow device will generate a voltage.
I didn't see this anywhere.

Quote (Hydropath site):

It is this acceleration that forms the electromagnetic field. The electric component is responsible for the generation of nuclear clusters that act as seed crystals to prevent the formation of encrusting scale.
I read this as saying the Hydropath unit creates a voltage potential(and current), and that magnetic flux is created as a result of the CURRENT, not the other way around as described by bimr(?) I think we are familiar with this effect, and use the "right hand law" in common practice.

In summary, it should not be difficult to test one of these units to see if they at least generate the wave form described. Surely Weatherford would have tested this!(?)

H2OGirl

RE: Weatherford Acquires ClearWell Technology

>>Surely Weatherford would have tested this!(?)<<

Not in evidence.  

Companies buy technologies for a lot of reasons, not all of them technical.  Often, the people who are authorized to spend the money are not capable of evaluating the technical merits of anything proposed.  Too often, they are also too proud to ask for help, even from persons already in their employ.  Or they may respond to that old sales pitch of "buy it now or lose the opportunity".

Example:  My friend President Junior gave me an item to evaluate and report on.  I tested it, and said it was a "neat hack", mostly worked as advertised, but that I probably wouldn't buy it.  He replied that he already bought it.  The company that made it, that is.  I refrained from making most of the obvious comments that sprang to mind.  Later I spoke with some people at the purchased company.  They were expecting a cash infusion after the sale; it never came.  To this day I don't know what Junior had in mind; with enhancements, the product could have been more useful to us as an OEM and to the nominal consumer population too.  Didn't happen.

I'm pretty sure that companies are also bought and starved like that solely to keep one or more of the principals from competing with the buyer.  Sadly, no one ever perceived me as that much of a threat.



Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

RE: Weatherford Acquires ClearWell Technology

(OP)
Watergirl,

You have misread the hydropath/hydroflow blurb:

Watergirl says "This would not indicate that they claim a "perfect sinusoidal curve". My understanding is that the signal generated is described by the little blue "squiggly" in the diagram."

bimr says:

Here is the quote from hydropath/hydroflow theory page:

"To generate a reasonable flow of electrons in an open circuit conductor, it is necessary to provide a source of high frequency to a conductor that is long enough to generate a standing wave voltage over its length. Fig.1 shows a sign wave of 200 KHz. The wave length is 1500m, the 1/4 wave length is 375m."

The "the little blue "squiggly" in the diagram." that you are referencing is supposed to be the power supply for the transformer.

The blurb states "The signal that is fed to the primary coil(transformer <sic>) is a high frequency diminishing wave with random wait periods."

Look at the "standing waves" generated by high frequency transformers:

http://schmidt-walter.fbe.fh-darmstadt.de/smps_e/trafo_hilfe_e.html#uotp

What hydropath/hydroflow is saying is impossible.

Hard to believe that you are debating that a device that uses only 8 watts of energy is going to do anything. The lights on the device are probably going to use most of the 8 watts up.

C100     90-260VAC/24VDC     30mA     8.05 watts


I mistakenly left out the word "not" above:
4. Electromagnetic flow meters utilize Faraday's law for conductive fluids to measure flow. Faraday's law says that when a conductive liquid moves in a pipe with a velocity through a magnetic field, it will induce a voltage. E = BvDC where E is voltage,  v is average velocity, B is intensity of magnetic field, D is the length of conductor, and C is a constant depending on dimensional units.

Faraday’s law is the basis of theory for the development of magmeter technology.

On the contrary, hydropath/hydroflow 's theory states that when a conductive liquid moves in a pipe with a velocity through a magnetic field, the hydropath/hydroflow device will "not" generate a voltage.

In summary, these devices are without a doubt, completely bogus. There is not a single controlled study showing positive results.


RE: Weatherford Acquires ClearWell Technology

(OP)
hydropath/hydroflow nonsense:

"To generate a reasonable flow of electrons in an open circuit conductor, it is necessary to provide a source of high frequency to a conductor that is long enough to generate a standing wave voltage over its length."

bimr says:

The wavelength is determined easily by calculation since wavelength=speed of light / frequency. The wavelength has nothing to do with "it is necessary to provide a source of high frequency to a conductor that is long enough to generate a standing wave voltage over its length."


Electromagnetic waves travel at the speed of light (29,979,245,800 centimeters per second) and their frequency and wavelength can be determined by the formulas:

L = c /f = 29,979,245,800 / 200 KHz. = 1500 meters

http://www.1728.com/freqwave.htm

RE: Weatherford Acquires ClearWell Technology

(OP)
hydropath/hydroflow nonsense:

"Fig.2 represents the position at T1 on Fig.1 and Fig. 3 represent the position at T2 on Fig.1. To achieve this flow of electrons in the plumbing system a voltage must be generated in the water in the direction of the pipe."

"This voltage difference between the extremities of the plumbing system is caused by a substantial flow of electrons from one end to the other of the system."

http://www.hydroflow.force9.co.uk/theory.htm

watergirl,

Would you be kind enough to explain how you can have electrons flowing in one direction in a pipe, as shown in Figure? It would appear that the electrons would normally flow in all directions away from the power source.

Is the trick that you must use AC or DC rated pipes?

RE: Weatherford Acquires ClearWell Technology

Hi bimr,

I was getting tired of debating the "theory" surrounding this, so I decided to contact one of the USA distributors of this technology (not ClearWELL, but a USA Hydropath distributor). I explained that I was interested in testing a unit to determine if it in fact generates the waveform indicated on the Hydropath (and their) website. The reaction I got was a laugh, which was followed by "we get quite a bit of that lately". It seems that many "leaders in the field of physics" have the same opinion as bimr regarding this, and the subject has become quite popular.

After speaking more with them, and for the sake of "science", I agreed to purchase a unit if they would refund my money should I determine that the unit does not create the waveform as specified. They agreed, so I expect to receive the test unit shortly. (a small "HS-38" unit)

I should say that my testing the unit will have nothing to do with whether it works to control scale or not. My water has a TDS of 75ppm, so I don't have any scaling issues to test against.

I will document my findings and report them here, and on the Water Treatment:New & Alternatives Forum, regardless of my findings.

All "theory" aside, I will get to the bottom of this debate.

H2OGirl

RE: Weatherford Acquires ClearWell Technology

(OP)
That's a great idea Watergirl,

I am not sure how much energy it takes to produce such a "standing wave", but it will be interesting to see.

From the hydropath/hydroflow website, it says that the energy usage for the HS-38 unit is:

"12 VAC. 100mA.
Max power 1.2 watts"

http://www.hydroflow.force9.co.uk/domestic.htm

Since the power usage of the HS-38 unit is only 2% of the cost of operating a 60 watt incandescent light bulb, it will not cost you very much to find out. If my math is correct,

1.2 watts/1000 = 0.0012 kw

kWh = kW x hrs = 0.0012 kw per hour

$ = $/kWh x kWh = $0.10/kwh X 0.0012 kw per hour = $0.0001 per hour


The HS-38 unit supposedly has working LED's so that one can determine whether the power is on. The typical LED may use as much as 1 watt. It would be very interesting to measure the power usage with the LED's plugged and unplugged.

http://www.theledlight.com/led_flashlightbulbs.html

Maybe I will buy one of these devices myself. It would be interesting to see if a device that uses no energy has any capability whatsoever.

RE: Weatherford Acquires ClearWell Technology

I'm actually quite anxious to see what I find out with this.

The vendor indicated that the unit would be shipped same day, USPS Priority mail, so I should have it fairly soon.

They also provided me with some information regarding testing that I found very interesting.

They indicated that the LED is powered by the generated signal itself, and is not a "power light". (apparently the LED is somehow wired to the secondary side of the circuit, and is independent of the power source)

They indicated that the HS-38 should put out about 8v peak to peak "off pipe".

They indicated that the output peak to peak voltage should not decrease more than 10% if "positioned correctly on pipe". (and went on about "loops")

They indicated that the signal is strong enough to light an LED on a second unit mounted upstream or downstream of a powered unit. (i.e. if I were to put two units on a pipe, the signal generated from the powered unit would light the LED on the other non-powered unit) I did not want to spend the money to buy two units to find out if this is true, so I may try to figure out another way to test this. They also indicated that the best way to conduct testing would be on a non-conductive pipe, so it can be seen that the signal is on the "fluid column itself", and not just the pipe. I agree.

I guess the next thing I need to do is to establish a good testing protocol. The vendor has agreed to provide me with some info on this, so I will need to verify that what they provide can be considered "valid". Any other suggestions on how to test the unit are also welcome.

I have to say that the vendor seems very protective about disclosing information. I was told that I would be required to sign a non-disclosure agreement before they would provide any additional information regarding testing.

I would also (eventually) like to have one of our forum members verify the test protocol and eventual findings, should I find what appears to be a positive outcome. Perhaps bimr would be interested in volunteering his services?

H2OGirl

RE: Weatherford Acquires ClearWell Technology

I've continued this thread on the Water Treatment:New & Alternative Technologies Forum under the thread "Putting Hydropath Technology to the Test".

bimr: Please take a look at the test material the vendor provided and provide feedback. Thanks!

H2OGirl

RE: Weatherford Acquires ClearWell Technology

Since you don't have a scale forming water, how will you test it?

Gary Schreiber, CWS VI
The Purolite Co.

RE: Weatherford Acquires ClearWell Technology

Hi GarySCWSVI,
All I can do at this point is test to see if it does in fact create the waveform described on their website, and test to see if I can detect a signal "on a fluid column".

Although this means nothing as far as "scale control" is concerned, there has been some debate whether the principles of operation are even valid, if it is possible to create a "standing sine wave" on a piping system, or to be able to "induce a signal into a fluid column".

These things shouldn't be that hard to test for, I wouldn't think...

H2OGirl

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources