Honesty – Best Policy

Dear ample amphibian-

A gentleman from UTILX says that while he worked for Dow Corning Corporation in the early 1990’s he and his colleagues tested the materials that Novinium uses today and that Dow Corning rejected their use because these materials were second-rate, that is they did not work as well as the PMDMS (or phenylmethyldimethoxysilane), the main ingredient of CableCURE^®/XL fluid.

What say you?

California Dreamer

Dear Dreamer-

There are three assertions being made by an Individual From Competition (IFC) who knows better:

Assertion 1: Dow Corning tested the materials that Novinium uses today,

Assertion 2: The performance of those materials was second-rate in comparison to the main component of CableCURE/XL, namely PMDMS, and

Assertion 3: Even with all the other process and catalyst improvements Novinium has made, Novinium’s fluid remains second-rate.

pieces of eight

by t. b. frog

 

you are not the first person, to whom this dream has been spun,

i was not even a glimmer in my father’s eye when this work was done;

somebody is indeed dreaming, but it is easy to set the record straight,

consider these pieces, there are eight.

 

Piece One: Assertion without proof

Let’s say that you had data which demonstrated your competitor’s product was inferior to your own. Wouldn’t you publish it? IFC, come clean … show us the data you purport to possess!

Piece Two: Testimony

To get the straight scoop I went to my colleague, Glen Bertini. Mr. Bertini directed the early work at Dow Corning (circa 1992). He is the guy who conceived of CableCURE/XL fluid, and he is a co-inventor of the materials that Novinium uses today. Mr. Bertini knows that all three of IFC’s assertions are not entirely forthright. The silane materials that Novinium uses today are listed unambiguously on the Ultrinium™ 732 and Ultrinium™ 733 material safety data sheets (MSDS). These materials are …

• tolylethylmethyldimethoxysilane (+ isomer of same & 8-carbon alkoxy analog)

• cyanobutylmethyldimethoxysilane (and 8-carbon alkoxy analog)

Mr. Bertini provides a sworn and notarized declaration (link is nearby) asserting that neither of these materials were tested by Dow Corning or UTILX during the 22-year period from July 1980 to December 2001.

80-20120627_GJB_Declaration.pdf (281.40 kb)

Piece Three: Challenge

Mr. Bertini hereby challenges IFC to a public debate exploring the merits of these assertions. The debate will be recorded in its entirety and provided, unedited on YouTube for the entire world to see and hear. Novinium will bear all of the production costs and will travel to meet IFC at a venue of his choice – any time, anywhere.

Piece Four: Side-by-side taste test – Round I

IFC's employer had an opportunity to demonstrate the superiority of its technology when NEETRAC, NEETRAC’s sponsoring circuit owners, and other NEETRAC-affiliated industry leaders invited UtilX to participate in a side-by-side laboratory experiment together with Novinium. UtilX helped craft an experimental protocol, but withdrew its participation when the experiment was to actually begin. That experiment is complete and included the only rejuvenation firm willing to share their post-injection results in a truly independent experiment – that would be Novinium. UtilX demurred, citing “business and commercial reasons.”

Piece Five: Side-by-side taste test – Round II

If UTILX now regrets that it did not participate in the NEETRAC side-by-side test, Novinium will grant it a Mulligan. Novinium will eagerly participate in a new experiment, which directly compares the post-injection performance of UTILX’s products against Novinium products. It’s not too late to end the debate, but you have to promise not to withdraw at the eleventh hour this time! Novinium will fund the experiment, which will be executed by an independent laboratory with a substantially similar protocol as was previously agreed by UTILX.

Piece Six:  Analogous materials are not second-rate

It should be clear to the critical reader that Novinium’s modern fluids were never tested by Dow Corning or UTILX, but what about the second claim – the claim that the untested materials were second rate? If the materials were never tested, the assertion seems a little silly, but there is another less-than-honest dimension to this second assertion. IFC is suggesting that phenylmethyldimethoxysilane (PMDMS) utilized in CableCURE/XL fluid and Novinium’s own Perficio™ 011 fluid is first-rate or has no peers. Let’s test that assertion against the following statement proffered by UTILX in its paper, “Failures in Silicone-treated German Cables Due to an Unusual Aluminum-Methanol Reaction,” published at the IEEE, PES, ICC in October 2001. To wit …

“In those experiments there was not a statistically significant difference between the performance of methoxy silanes and their ethoxy equivalents. For example, the screening experiments included phenylmethyldimethoxysilane, tolylmethyldimethoxysilane, dimethyldimethoxysilane, and vinylmethyldiethoxysilane, which all had very similar performance profiles. The ultimate choice of the alkoxy group was not driven by performance, but was rather driven by commercial availability.”

PMDMS was chosen because it was cheap and easy to come by! UTILX names several materials for which “there was not a statistically significant difference between the [dielectric] performance” from the PMDMS that IFC now suggest is the one-and-only first-rate performer. The careful reader with some background in chemistry will note a similarity between the named tolylmethyldimethoxysilane and Novinium patented (U.S. 7,658,808 & 8,101,034) tolylethylmethyldimethoxysilane – different only in the two extra methylene units encompassed in the “ethyl.” The two materials are not identical, but they are analogous. The reported data contradict IFC’s second assertion. Novinium has done many experiments with its actual materials and these materials consistently outperform PMDMS. Check out my post of March 15, 2011 to learn how those two methylene units boost post-injection reliability of tolylethylmethyldimethoxysilane using “Chain Entanglement.” But there is more, not only are there unidentified materials in the data published by Dow Corning and reproduced in the illustration nearby, but there are materials which are not disclosed at all. Some unidentified materials performed better than PMDMS. IFC should publish all of the results – even if those results do not support his contentions.

Piece Seven:  Devil in the Details

In the illustration nearby I provide a compilation of data from the two cited sources – both are Dow Corning/UTILX documents. These data are a subset of the data to which IFC is undoubtedly referring when he makes his assertions. As you can see from Mr. Bertini’s Declaration there is even more data, which if it were made public would cast an even darker shadow on the assertions of IFC. It’s interesting data for sure, but it does not support the notion that PMDMS is particularly special. There are a variety of other materials, which show statistically similar performance. But what is the ACBD of the y-axis? It’s the AC breakdown strength (50% probability) after 6 months of immersion in ambient temperature water and 2.5X rated voltage (20 kV). Is that test protocol a good predictor of performance after 20 years? After 40? Of course, not. To suggest so would be like declaring that the horse in first place at the first turn will win the derby. The testing to which IFC refers is a short-term screening experiment and cannot discriminate long-term performance.

Piece Eight:  Overlooking the catalyst

Not only was the experiment woefully short and not thermally accelerated, all of the silanes tested were catalyzed with 0.2%_w titanium(IV) isopropoxide (TIP). Novinium does not use TIP because it suffers from an unacceptably low catalytic efficiency. It’s about 39% inefficient. Novinium’s patented catalyst technology is 98% efficient. See my previous posts on the subject of catalytic efficiency at …

Catalytic Considerations – Component I (January 3, 2011)

Catalytic Considerations – Component II (January 5, 2011)

Novinium’s master scientists have not tested every water reactive material shown in the illustration with our patented catalyst technology, but we have tested all the commercially important ones. Without exception, long-term performance, what I like to call persistence, is substantially improved by the application of Novinium’s U.S. Patent 7,700,871.

There is an old Madison Avenue adage, “If you don’t have anything to say – sing it!” Which of the following do you like the best for the IFC Corollary? (check all that apply)

ü  If you don’t have any facts – wing it!

ü  If the facts don’t support your position – obfuscate!

ü  If you won’t spend money on R&D, cite 20-year-old data out of context!

Finally, I have a selfish appeal directly to IFC, who is one of my most loyal readers. Don’t change your story one iota! The reason that so many circuit owners tell us of your tale, is that it isn’t credible. Send me your comments and I will publish them here unedited.

Credibility is transparency,

T. B. Frog

80-20120627_GJB_Declaration.pdf (281.40 kb)

Dielectric IV

In Dielectric I, I provided the first part of a four-part answer to a query from Alabama – the summary question: To what extent does the introduction of injection equipment into energized devices impact the safe operation of medium voltage circuits? We learned that there are great differences in the extent of this risk depending upon the injection paradigm employed. In fact there are three injection paradigms and at Novinium we use only the safest processes. With Novinium’s patented SPR (sustained pressure rejuvenation) there is zero additional risk. With Novinium’s iUPR (improved unsustained pressure rejuvenation) process the risk is many times less than the legacy approach used by others. The legacy paradigm is called UPR (unsustained pressure rejuvenation). In Dielectric II, I provided data and analysis that showed why the feed end of an iUPR injection is simply not a safety issue. In Dielectric III, I examined the design issues associated with the vacuum tank utilized for iUPR and the features that make iUPR the second safest injection approach, just behind Novinium’s SPR method. Both SPR and iUPR are available only from Novinium and our partners, as these injection paradigms require the application of patented technologies.

Alabama, you asked the eight questions below. Direct answers are provides below. The answers for (1) through (5) are taken from the previous posts.

(1) What is the insulation rating of the fluid(s) that you use for injecting?

Answer:  Several inches of Ultrinium™ fluid are enough to prevent substantial leakage current. The minimum amount of fluid between an energized device and a potential ground plane is 36 inches. There is at least a two order of magnitude overdesign.

(2) What is the insulation rating of the hose(s) you use from your canisters to the injection point?

Answer: The AC breakdown strength of the tubing we use is greater than 80 kV.

(3) What is the insulation rating of the canisters themselves?

Answer: The AC breakdown strength of the Novinium’s iUPR feed tank and iUPR vacuum tank is greater than that of the tubing in question (2).

(4) What is the insulation rating for the combination elbow/canister?

Answer: The tubing has the lowest AC breakdown strength at about 80 kV.

(5) Do you have the test data for these pieces of equipment? Will you share the test data with the group?

Answer: Novinium is all about transparency. We will share the relevant test reports with the writing group. The most important data has been provided in the previous posts.

(6, 7 & 8) Have you looked at the electrical separation distance from your canisters to the cover or live bushing?  Have you looked at the electrical separation distance from your canisters to ground wires in the equipment? Have you looked at the electrical separation distances from your canister connected to one phase and to the other phases in a three phase installation?

Answer: Of course, all of Novinium’s iUPR equipment is designed to be placed in dead-front enclosures and live-front applications – enclosed and exposed. As you look at the photographs of the iUPR equipment you will notice that they are made up of mostly dielectric materials. There are a few conductive brass fittings, but no conductor length is greater than an inch or two. With that design feature the components can be set into any high voltage environment without having a material impact on safe separation distances. Furthermore the equipment is typically deployed for only 12 to 48 hours.

Summary

Novinium’s SPR method completely eliminates the risks we have been discussing in these four posts. Novinium’s iUPR is a substantial improvement over the older UPR method. The elimination of the soak period reduces the exposure of potentially energized equipment over sixty-fold. On the feed side, iUPR equipment is inherently unable to become energized beyond a nominal static charge. On the vacuum side, iUPR equipment is designed to contain within its bowels at least 80 kV. Even with these inherent advantages and engineered safety factors Novinium assumes that the equipment is “potentially energized” and we handle the iUPR injection equipment with hot sticks. With Novinium’s iUPR process we have observed exactly zero occasions where the equipment is energized. Many of the Novinium masters of reliability have over a decade of field experience, some have over two, and have been involved in operations with the legacy UPR process. Those masters have witnessed events where equipment was actually energized. This safety issue with UPR is explicitly acknowledged by the sole purveyors of the UPR process in their U.S. Patent 7,704,087 dated April 27, 2010. Read the patent yourself if you doubt this frog, or check out the excerpt in my April 15, 2011 post, “Soaking II: Safety First.”

What remains confusing to me is why anyone would accept the risks inherent in the UPR process. I wouldn’t want to be the defendant explaining why I chose the least safe approach. A comprehensive analysis of the safety differences between the various injection paradigms and fluid choices are presented in “A Comparison of Rejuvenation Hazards.” Click here for the straight scoop.

Better safe than sorry,

Thermonuclear Bull Frog

Dielectric III

In Dielectric I, I provided the first part of a four-part answer to eight questions from Alabama. The eight questions can be summarized thusly: To what extent does the introduction of injection equipment into energized devices impact the safe operation of medium voltage circuits? We learned in the first installment that there are great differences in the extent of this risk depending upon the injection paradigm employed. There are three injection paradigms and at Novinium we use only the safest processes. With Novinium’s patented SPR (sustained pressure rejuvenation) there is zero risk associated with the interaction of energized circuits and injection equipment. With Novinium’s iUPR (improved unsustained pressure rejuvenation) process, the risk is many times less than the legacy approach employed by others. The legacy paradigm is called UPR (unsustained pressure rejuvenation). In my second post, Dielectric II, I provided data that demonstrated why the feed end of an iUPR injection is not a safety issue – unfortunately the same conclusion is not true for the legacy UPR process. The purveyors of UPR acknowledge safety shortcomings of UPR in their U.S. Patent 7,704,087. I provide a relevant excerpt in my April 15, 2011 post, “Soaking II: Safety First.”

In the illustration nearby I am propped up against iUPR vacuum equipment. When the iUPR injection method is utilized, fluid flows unidirectionally from the iUPR feed tank through the cable and into the iUPR vacuum tank. While the dielectric properties of the fluid flowing into the cable are well known and stable, there is no way to be certain what will come out the other end. From a design perspective the Novinium engineering masters must assume that conductive water will flow from the outlet termination and into the iUPR vacuum tank.  The same 80 kV rated tubing is used on the vacuum side as was described in the previous post. The rating of the vacuum tank itself is higher still.

Of course, 80 kV is more than enough over-design for medium voltage applications, but there are other factors which provide the iUPR process a “belt and suspenders” robustness. Consider these three …

(1) It is very unusual for water to be in the strands of URD cables with 19 or fewer strands. I know that many believe the opposite is true, but the masters at Novinium have been injecting cables for over 25 years. If liquid water in URD cable strands were common we would see it – we don’t!  The occurrence is less than 1%. Where water is found in the strands is on pole terminated cables where the terminator design has a leak so that every time there is precipitation, water finds its way into the strand interstices. Don’t purchase pressed lugs – buy only solid lugs. If you want to know why there generally is not water in cable conductors, read “Molecular Thermodynamics of Water in Direct-buried Power Cables” from the Nov/Dec issue of IEEE Electrical Insulation Magazine. Click here to check it out.

(2) In the rare case where there is water, the time in which water will be in the tube is very limited. While cables are designed for continuous operation at operating voltage, the iUPR vacuum equipment is exposed for zero to perhaps sixty minutes. Any short duration exposure is eliminated when dielectric fluid flushes the last of any water from the strands and tubing.

(3) Effervescence limits the conductivity of fluid effluent along the vacuum tube interior. Carbon dioxide (CO₂) is liberated when you open a soda or beer bottle, because the pressure on the fluid is released.  CO₂ is used in iUPR to provide the driving force to the rejuvenation fluid. CO₂ is even more soluble in Ultrinium™ and Perficio™ rejuvenation fluids than it is in beer and soda. As CO₂-saturated rejuvenation fluid flows through the strand interstices and down the length of a cable the absolute pressure decreases almost linearly along the length. As the pressure decreases CO₂ is liberated. The viscosity of CO₂ is orders of magnitude lower than the liquid phase from which it effervesces, so it bubbles ahead of the fluid and rushes to the vacuum tank. Any fluid exiting the cable is interspersed between much more voluminous CO₂ bubbles. Of course, gaseous CO₂ is a great dielectric and its presence disconnects adjacent droplets of fluid and prevents there being a contiguous path for current to flow. Water, if present, does not wet the surface of the polyethylene tube, but instead stays as discrete droplets. The conductor voltage is not efficiently conveyed along the tubing length.

iUPR has simply never had issues arise in thousands and thousands of field applications. iUPR is not as safe as SPR, but it comes in second place.

In my final post, Dielectric IV, I will address the equipment separation issues Alabama raised in his questions, 6 through 8.

Never in a vacuum,

Thermo B. Frog

Dielectric II

In Dielectric I, I provided the first part of a four-part answer to a query from Alabama – the summary question: To what extent does the introduction of injection equipment into energized devices impact the safe operation of medium voltage circuits? We learned that there are great differences in the extent of this risk depending upon the injection paradigm employed. In fact there are three injection paradigms and at Novinium we use only the safest processes. With Novinium’s patented SPR (sustained pressure rejuvenation) there is zero additional risk. With Novinium’s iUPR (improved unsustained pressure rejuvenation) process the risk is many times less than the legacy approach used by others. The legacy paradigm is called UPR (unsustained pressure rejuvenation). In this post I provide data to show why the feed end of an iUPR injection is not a safety issue – unfortunately the same conclusion is not true for the legacy UPR process.

In the illustration nearby I am standing next to iUPR injection equipment. From left to right are …

A CO₂ cylinder enclosed in a PVC bag provides energy to urge fluid into the cable strands.  A polyethylene CO₂ supply tube provides about 20 psig of pressure to the predominantly plastic feed tank. At least three feet of polyethylene fluid supply tube with a wall thickness of 100 mils delivers fluid to an injection adapter and a mated injection elbow. In another case not illustrated, the fluid might be supplied to a live-front injection adapter. Whether dead-front or live-front, the fluid comes in direct contact with an energized conductor. The fluid is a dielectric, and with Novinium’s improved unsustained pressure rejuvenation process, the flow is one way – toward the termination. This one-way flow provides assurance that there is no fluid contamination from backward flow as suffered by legacy approaches. At Cable Technology Labs (CTL) the leakage current in a column of Ultrinium™ 732/40 fluid was measured between two electrodes at 15, 25, and 35 kV. The leakage current was steady at about 0.03 mA, 0.04 mA, and 0.05 mA for 15, 25, and 35 kV respectively from 14 feet of electrode separation down to less than 1 foot.

With the Novinium iUPR process there are no ground electrodes ever in direct contact with the fluid. The fluid flows though several feet of PE tubing with a wall thickness of 100 mils. The AC breakdown strength of the PE is at least 800 volts/mil and hence the AC breakdown strength of the tubing is greater than 80 kV. The fluid flows from a polypropylene/acetal tank with even thicker walls than the tubing. The closest ground plane is typically the concrete or earth on which the feed tank rests. Novinium has deployed these iUPR systems thousands and thousands of times and there have been zero issues. We wrap the CO₂ cylinder in a PVC bag to prevent accidental contact with exposed secondary voltages.

In my third post in the series, Dielectric III, I will discuss the design issues of the vacuum tank designed for iUPR and the features that make iUPR the second safest injection approach. Finally, in Dielectric IV, I will address the equipment separation issues Alabama raises in his questions, 6 through 8.

Dielectrically delighted,

T. B. Frog

Dielectric I

Dear Wisest Webbed one,

I am working on my comments/concerns for the Safety Section for the C30 Draft Guide [Editors note: C30 is a group within the IEEE/PES/ICC working towards the writing of a “Draft Guide for Rehabilitation and Rejuvenation of Extruded Dielectric Cable Rated 2.5 kV through 46 kV.” While that Draft is being crafted, interested readers may wish to review a Novinium published early version undertaken at the behest of the group’s chair, which is available at www.novinium.com/Standards.aspx.], and have a few questions. Just because the equipment is all or mostly plastic materials, these questions still need to be explored and discussed.

1. What is the insulation rating of the fluid(s) that you use for injecting?
2. What is the insulation rating of the hose(s) you use from your canisters to the injection point?
3. What is the insulation rating of the canisters themselves?
4. What is the insulation rating for the combination elbow/canister?
5. Do you have the test data for these pieces of equipment? Will you share the test data with the group?
6. Have you looked at the electrical separation distance from your canisters to the cover or live bushing?
7. Have you looked at the electrical separation distance from your canisters to ground wires in the equipment?
8. Have you looked at the electrical separation distances from your canister connected to one phase and to the other phases in a three phase installation?

Your froguidance would be appreciated.

Alabama detailed draft

Dear Alabama-

I don’t know about you, but the fact that the first three letters in dielectric spell “die” makes me want to take extra measure to assure the safety of all who use dielectric enhancement technology. The heart of your eight questions can be summarized thusly: To what extent does the introduction of injection equipment into energized devices impact the safe operation of medium voltage circuits? Before I answer that question generally and some of your more specific questions, it is important to recognize that there are three distinct methods of dielectric enhancement fluid injection and two conductor realms in which those methods are deployed. Ordered from oldest to most advanced, the three methods are:

    UPR ♦ Unsustained Pressure Rejuvenation,

    iUPR ♦ improved Unsustained Pressure Rejuvenation, and

    SPR ♦ Sustained Pressure Rejuvenation.

To learn more about the details of these rejuvenation methods, check out my June 18, 2010 post titled “How to Inject.” Novinium is synonymous with safety, so we use the two most advanced processes almost exclusively. In the very unusual cases where Novinium leaves injection devices attached to energized devices for more than a couple of days, equipment designed specifically for that case is deployed. Because it is a rare case, I refer interested readers to my April 15, 2001 post, “Soaking II: Safety First” for more details.

In this series of posts, I focus on the cases most important to circuit owners. In the table nearby the implementation of the three injection methods are compared for the two conductor cases, namely small conductor and large conductor. Small conductors include stranded conductors, generally with 19 or fewer strands. Note that for large conductors, cables are injected de-energized whichever injection method is utilized, and hence your questions are moot for these large conductors. Further, SPR is applied over 99% of the time to deenergized cables, and hence the questions are again largely moot. The only firm in the world that can deliver iUPR and SPR is Novinium, because we own the intellectual property on the methods and chemistry that make those processes possible. For most injection work we undertake, we operate in the green … my favorite color.

When we do inject into energized devices we mitigate the risks about which you are inquiring by limiting the period that injection equipment is connected to energized components. In the red portion of the table, older technology requires extensive soak periods spanning several months. At first glance you might assume that reducing the period of time by sixty-fold would reduce the exposure to the risk by sixty-fold, but you would be underestimating the impact. In the iUPR process, fluid flows in only one direction. A feed bottle with a positive pressure, typically about 20 psig, is attached to one cable end and a vacuum bottle with a negative pressure of around -10 psig is attached to the other cable end. Fluid flows from high to low pressure. Both the feed tank and the vacuum tank are removed concurrently. Thus on the feed side, fluid with a high dielectric strength flows through tubing made of a high dielectric polymer and there is a negligible probability of substantive current flow. I’ll provide some data in my second post, Dielectric II.  With iUPR the only substantive design issue is on the vacuum or outlet side, there is no way to be certain what will come out of the outlet, so we have to assume that it will be water. In practice, water seldom comes out of 7-strand or 19-strand cables (To learn why, click here.), but from a design perspective this is the worst-case assumption.

UPR has the same worst-case on the outlet end, but it also suffers from a more insidious issue on the inlet end. I examined this issue in some detail in my April 15, 2011 post, “Soaking II: Safety First.” You should read that post, but in summary, UPR suffers a risk that conductive contaminants will render the feed fluid conductive. The worst-case assumption on the inlet side is about the same as the on the vacuum side, but the feed is connected for 60 days or more. This risk is recognized by the practitioners of UPR, because they explain the risk and a potential solution to mitigate the risk in U.S. Patent 7,704,087 of April 27, 2010. Amazingly after exposing the risk those practitioners have not implemented their mitigation strategy. I usually speak only of technical matters, but you don’t have to have a law degree to recognize that if you know about a safety problem, but do nothing to mitigate the issue – your liability undoubtedly increases. Risk managers should take this knowledge into account as they make their choice between the various injection processes. If your firm believes in safety as the most important criteria, don’t utilize UPR.

In my next post (Dielectric II), I will provide some data to show why the feed end of an iUPR injection is not a safety issue. In my third post in the series (Dielectric III), I will discuss the design issues of the vacuum tank designed for iUPR and the features that make iUPR the second safest injection approach. Finally, in Dielectric IV, I will address the equipment separation issues you raise in your questions, 6 through 8. For a thorough description of all of the rejuvenation dimensions of safety check out the 89-page treatise, “A Comparison of Rejuvenation Hazards & Compatibility.”

Practicing safe rejuvenation,

T. B. Frog