23. March 2012 19:43
Better Than New
Dear Learned Leaper,
Why would I use rejuvenation, when I can have new cable?
Dear Cable Guy-
I suspect, Cable Guy, that you’re not a circuit owner. Do you work for one of the cable manufacturers? If you were a circuit owner, you would know that money does not grow on trees and rejuvenation is almost always considerably less capital intensive than wholesale replacement. The question would have had more merit had it been asked two decades ago when the first generation of rejuvenation technology was becoming commercially important. The anticipated life of the first generation of fluid in non-demanding applications was and remains about two decades. The generally anticipated life of post 1990-vintage cables is about four decades. The 2X difference in anticipated life complicated the economic analysis of the treat or replace question. Advanced technology from Novinium can provide the same four-decades of service life, so that issue is a relic of the 20th Century.
How about post-injection reliability? In the January 31, 2012 issue of the Las Vegas Regional Journal, it was reported that NV Energy experiences about a 0.6% failure rate when it replaces cable. NV Energy reports that the older injection approach has about the same failure rate over a 12-year period. Utilizing Novinium’s state-of-the-art technology and the outstanding craftsmanship of our service delivery experts, our overall failure rate is less than 0.4%. That’s about 33% better than the failure rate of new cable. Novinium rejuvenation technology is better than new! But, here’s the really cool part, Novinium technology and delivery methodology continues to improve! In the graph nearby I am pointing at the beta value of our Crow-AMSAA analysis of all of the faults we have ever experienced treating millions of feet of cable on three continents. The value is 0.56. A value less than one indicates that the failure rate is decreasing – a one would mean that it is staying the same, and a value greater than one would indicate deteriorating reliability. To learn more about Crow-AMSAA, check out my August 11, 2011 post, “Crow.”
Novinium announced the passing of the “Better than new” milestone today. Click here to read the press release. We periodically post a transparent summary of our failure history at novinium.com/Lessons.aspx.
Better next year,
Thermo B. Frog
11. August 2011 16:06
Dear Frog of Knowledge,
Can you explain the Crow-AMSAA graph on Novinium’s web site at novinium.com/lessons.aspx? How do I compare Novinium’s post-injection reliability to that of UTILX?
Not wanting to eat crow,
What a great play on words! My fans that compose creative questions get to move right to the front of the queue. You are justified in “c’raving” reliability. I took the opportunity your inquiry provided to update the Novinium failure statistics through August 10, 2011. I present those statistics in the chart nearby. Crow was a guy that worked for the “Army Material Systems Analysis Activity” or AMSAA. Crow developed the statistical model that now bears his name and that of his employer. Crow-AMSAA or “C-A” for short is widely recognized as a preferred model to predict the reliability of complex systems that experience multiple failure mechanisms.
The x-axis is the product of the feet of cable that have been treated by Novinium and the years that have elapsed since treatment. For example, if a 328 foot (100 meter) length of cable was treated three year ago, its contribution to the cumulative treated would be 984 feet*years. The x-axis is logarithmic. Plotted against the y-axis are the failures – 56 in total. A least squares regression of the failures provides a slope, or beta, of 0.64. A beta less than 1 means the failure rate is decreasing. Process and chemistry improvements, together with the improving mastery of the Novinium’s craft workers, make Novinium technology more and more reliable. That’s not to say that when Novinium began injection operations over six years ago post-injection performance was unacceptable. Novinium started where the old technology, invented by Novinium founders, reached a reliability plateau. When I did this same C-A analysis nine months ago (November 2010) the beta was 0.72. So, not only is the failure rate decreasing, but the rate of decrease is accelerating! About 99.4% of all the cables, which Novinium have treated, remain in reliable service. This is at least twice as good as the other guys!
With regard to how you can compare Novinium reliability with that of UtilX, I can only provide you with some frog-advice. As a circuit owner you should demand that UtilX publish its total failure statistics – not just a few select circuit owners, the whole data set. Then circuit owners would be able to make an apples-to-apples comparison. Don’t hold your breath, when NEETRAC, their sponsoring circuit owners, and other industry leaders invited UtilX to participate in a side-by-side laboratory experiment, UtilX helped craft an experiment, but withdrew their participation when the experiment actually began. By the way, 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.”
No need to crow when you can croak,
T. B. Frog