Weatherford Acquires ClearWell Technology 1

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:


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!

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

H2OGirl said:

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

Click to expand...

GarySCWSVI said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

GarySCWSVI said:

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

Click to expand...

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

GarySCWSVI said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

watergirl,

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



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".

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.

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.

kchayfie said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

*******Newsflash to watergirl:********

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


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


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"

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

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.

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?

bimr said:

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

Click to expand...

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

H2OGirl

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

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

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....."

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.


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.


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.




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?

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