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)

 Voltage Constraints

Dear Abundant Amphibian,

At our monthly staff meeting yesterday afternoon, I made the presentation on our cable rejuvenation project and I believe it was well received.  I appreciate the information and PowerPoint slides that your most excellent sales representative supplied.

I did have one question asked that I did not know the answer to – what is the voltage limit of the process?  I am sending an e-mail to our department director concerning our project and the benefits of the rejuvenation process in general and I would like to include the answer to that question if possible.

John

Dear John-

The highest voltage ever rejuvenated was 115 kV.  As a practical matter there are not many solid dielectric cables at voltages above 115 kV that are not water-tight designs.  However, if there were we would love to treat those too.  You see the thicker the insulation the easier it is to treat the cable.  The rate of fluid exudation, that is the rate the fluid leaves the cable, is slower the thicker the insulation.  Our most technically difficult challenge is the 110 mil thickness 5 kV cables.  So there really is no upper limit.

In 2012 we will be unveiling new products to deal with lower voltage cables, so we will be able to treat any solid dielectric cable – any voltage, any non-filled stranded conductor.

Any voltage – any time,

Thermo

Dearest Green One,

I have a need to rehabilitate some aging URD circuits.  How long have Novinium fluids and injection technologies been in use?  I prefer to use proven technology.

Signed,

Middle East Query – Novinium Research Papers

Middle East Query – Novinium References

Dweller of the Desert asked 22 questions in his post …

Middle East Query – 22 Questions.

In this installment I address question 7.

7.   Does Novinium have proof of success available (references)?

The institution of Novinium has worked for over 75 different utilities and industrial customers around the world.  That’s pretty impressive, but institutions don’t have experience – the people within those institutions have experience.  The masters of technology and the master craftsmen, who are the people of Novinium, have experience at hundreds of utilities and industrial sites on every continent except Antarctica.  When we work in January in northern Alberta Canada, it just looks like Antarctica!  Ask your sales professional for a sampling of where the Novinium team has worked.  Also check out dozens of case studies at www.novinium.com/CaseStudies.aspx.  Here is something else you don’t usually see, we share our lessons learned too!  Check those out at http://www.novinium.com/Lessons.aspx.  Want more?  We publish our overall failure statistics.  I provide those results nearby in a Crow-AMSAA graph.  The Crow-AMSAA plot shows an overall failure statistic for our collection of technologies.  The slope (β) of the line is less than 1, which indicates a declining rate of failure – a benefit of continuous improvement.  The overall success rate of about 99.1% is as good as it gets.

How about truly independent testing?  Novinium is the only rejuvenation supplier in the world that would participate in a NEETRAC side-by-side rejuvenation test.  The other guys declined to participate citing “business and commercial reasons.”  I am not entirely sure what that means, but one possible translation using frog-logic:  “We don’t want a direct performance comparison of 20-year-old technology against Novinium’s state-of-the-art patented technology.”  What do you think?

For now, Ma’a salama (مع السلامة/Good bye)

T. B. Frog

Middle East Query – History of Cable Rejuvenation

Dweller of the Desert asked 22 questions in his post …

Middle East Query – 22 Questions.

In this installment I address question 3.

3.   How old is cable injection technology?

Cable rejuvenation was first carried out in 1984 – check out the graph nearby.  That’s 26 years!  The industry has rejuvenated over 19,000 km of cable with less than a 1% failure rate.  After inventing the original injection process and fluids, Novinium scientists have dramatically improved the injection process and injection fluids available today – we made the process and materials safer, faster, and better.  The world’s most experienced technology experts are part of the Novinium team.  The world’s most experienced rejuvenation delivery specialists are part of the Novinium team.  Check out some of the folks from this team including our own rock stars at www.novinium.com/Team.aspx.  As for me, there is no frog anywhere in the world who has been at this game longer than me.

For now, Ma’a salama (مع السلامة/Good bye)

Mature Frog

Middle East Query - Treatable Cables

Dweller of the Desert asked 22 questions in his post …

Middle East Query – 22 Questions.

In this first installment I address questions 1 and 2.

Cable types and addressable problems:

a.   Power – water trees, oxidative degradation, strand-corrosion, water intrusion;

b.   electrical communication (twisted pair and control cables) – water intrusion, cross-talk, conductor corrosion, battery;

c.    fiber optic – water intrusion;

d.   umbilical cables containing all of the above including hydraulics – see addressable problems in a-c;

e.   marine cables, large vessels.

Insulation:

a.   HMWPE (high molecular weight polyethylene);

b.   XLPE (cross-linked polyethylene);

c.    TR-XLPE (tree-retardant cross-linked polyethylene);

d.   EPR (ethylene-propylene rubber in all its various colors and flavors); and

e.   more.

Installations:

a.   Direct buried;

b.   cable in conduits and ducts;

c.    submarine cable;

d.   cable in trays (inside and outside)

Conductor sizes:  30 mm² to 1000 mm².

Voltages:

a.   Secondary voltages;

b.   primary voltages;

c.    transmission voltages; and

d.   zero voltage optical cables.

Conductor stranding:

a.   Concentric (round);

b.   compressed; and

c.    compact.

2.   What kinds, types, and sizes of power cables cannot be injected?

Solid and strand-blocked power cables cannot be injected.  Gel filled communication cables cannot be injected.

If you have an application not listed above, send an email to me at bull.frog@novinium.com.  The Novinium team includes the world’s foremost experts on rejuvenation and we love to hear of new challenges.

For now, Ma’a salama (مع السلامة/Good bye)

T. B. Frog

Crazy Competitor Claims

Dear Thermonuclear Bull Frog,

I recently attended a webinar on cable rejuvenation presented by another firm and need to ask some questions:

1.    How can Novinium get the same cable life extension without a soak period?  It would seem to me that Novinium puts less fluid into the cable than one would get with a soak period.

2.    The ’840/’841 patents prevent anyone from using a fluid that diffuses into the insulation quickly.  Do Novinium fluids infringe on those patents?  Won’t a fluid with faster diffusion and reactive fluids lead to faster and better treatment of the cable?

3.    Isn’t it better to have a 100% reactive fluid?  I understand that not all of the Novinium fluid components are water reactive.  When all the fluid components are reacting with water, it seems like you should get better cable rejuvenation.

4.    I see that Novinium uses an acid catalyst in their fluids.  Won’t this acid damage the cable, be dangerous to handle, or cause environmental problems?

5.    A new fluid, DMDB, has been introduced.  Will this improve injection performance on my URD cables?

Wonderer in the Wilderness

Dear Wonderer-

Wow, five questions in one inquiry!  That’s a record for this frog.  I like prolific questioners Mr. Wonderer, but some in my audience have short attention spans, so here is what I am going to do.  In this post, I will clarify some of your questions and provide abbreviated answers.  In the next few weeks I will expand on each of the answers.  When I do that, I will come back here and edit this post to include a link to the comprehensive answer.

First let me say that the technology utilized by the folks on the other end of the webinar was largely invented by Novinium founders.  If you want to use that technology, we will take it as a compliment that even our two-decade old ideas still have frog legs.

1.    You wrote:  How can Novinium get the same cable life extension without a soak period?  It would seem to me that Novinium puts less fluid into the cable than one would get with a soak period.

a.    Abbreviated answer:  When Novinium founders invented the technology that utilizes a soak period, we had never measured the relative diffusion rates of the catalyst and the monomer.  When we made that measurement a few years ago, we were a little embarrassed to learn that the previously chosen catalyst diffuses about six-times slower than the monomer.  This mismatch means that for a typical 15kV cable with a 1/0 AWG conductor, more than one-third of the fluid supplied to the cable prematurely diffuses out without undergoing the required condensation reaction.  We call this unfortunate condition, catalytic inefficiency.  As soon as the Novinium science team recognized this problem, we fixed it.  It turns out that in a typical 60-day soak period about one third more fluid is supplied, which just about makes up for the catalytic inefficiency.  Novinium patented our solution (U.S. Patent 7, 700,871).  Now, if you are enamored with soak periods and don’t mind the safety compromises and economic consequences that they entail, we can do soak periods too.

b.    Comprehensive answer:  See Catalytic Considerations - Component I and Catalytic Considerations - Component II

2.    You wrote:  The ’840/’841 patents prevent anyone from using a fluid that diffuses into the insulation quickly.  Do your fluids infringe on those patents?  Won’t a fluid with faster diffusion and reactive fluids lead to faster and better treatment of the cable?

a.    Abbreviated answer:  Ouch!  Suggesting to a circuit owner that a competitor is engaging in patent infringement is not a tactic we would use.  The short answers to both parts of this question are:  No and no.  The second half of the questions about size (i.e. faster diffusion) and water reactivity are addressed by question 3 below.

b.    Comprehensive answer:  See Size Does Matter.

3.    You wrote:  Isn’t it better to have a 100% reactive fluid?  I understand that not all of the Novinium fluid components are water reactive.  When all the fluid components are reacting with water, it seems like you should get better cable rejuvenation.

a.    Abbreviated answer:  No!

                                       i.    I know who suggested this to you, so let’s check out what he wrote to learn if 100% water reactivity really is important:  “The presence of the water reactive functionality phenylmethyldimethoxysilane within the insulation was confirmed by microscopic infrared spectroscopy (SiOMe band at 1190 cm^-1) through 54 days.  It should be noted that 1/0 AWG size cable has a small conductor interstitial volume compared to the volume of polymer surrounding.  Larger diameter conductor cables would be expected to have considerably more water reactive functionality present for dielectric enhancement over a longer period.”  [Don Kleyer & Wayne Chatterton, The Importance of Diffusion and Water Scavenging in Dielectric Enhancement of Aged Medium Voltage Underground Cables, Proceedings of the IEEE/PES Conference April 1994.]

                                      ii.    Allow me to translate.  The water reactive functionality is gone in about two months, but it would last somewhat longer in bigger cable, but shorter still in say, a No.2 AWG cable.

                                    iii.    For decades-long life extension, it is quite a stretch to suggest that water reactivity over a couple of months is critical.  But, if you want to believe what the author says now, rather than what his experiments previously indicated, we will make a special 100% water reactive fluid for you.  You see, Novinium has a patent (U.S. Patent 7,611,748) on a process of tailoring the fluid formulation to your unique conditions.  We will make a special brew just for you.  We can name it Ultrinium™/WC.  You might think that “WC” are the initials of the water reactivity proponent, but it stands for Water-reactive Confusion.

b.    Comprehensive answer:  See Size Does Matter.

4.    You wrote:  I see that Novinium uses an acid catalyst in their fluids.  Won’t this acid damage the cable, be dangerous to handle, or cause environmental problems?

a.    Abbreviated answer:  I notice that you use an acid in your salad dressing – vinegar.  I notice that you squeeze acid on your fish – lemon juice!  I think the webinar presenter is jealous of our U.S. Patent 7,700,871. We use less than 0.3%, less than 3 parts per thousand of a very large acid molecule called DDBSA.  The acid part of the large DDBSA molecule is 1 part in 332.  In other words the concentration of the acid proton is about 1 part in 111,000!  That’s like putting a teaspoon of vinegar in your bath water.  So no, there is no issue.  The same cannot be said of titanium(IV) isopropoxide (TIP), which is the catalyst used in the two-decade-old technology at a level of 2 parts per 1000.  TIP catalyzes the methanolic corrosion of aluminum.  TIP doesn’t taste good on salad or on fish either.

b.    Comprehensive answer:  The dilute acid will not damage the cable.  It has been deployed in millions of cable feet.  The dilute acid is not dangerous to humans or amphibians.  The acid catalyst enjoys profound benefits.  See Catalytic Considerations - Component I and Catalytic Considerations - Component II to learn more.

5.    You wrote:  A new fluid, DMDB, has been introduced.  Will this improve injection performance on my URD cables?

a.    Abbreviated answer:  No way!  Did the guy actually suggest that?  The active portion of DMDB is diluted by the presence of two 4-carbon alkoxy groups that serve no purpose other than to mitigate the aforementioned methanolic corrosion issue.  Fully two-thirds of the fluid is lost even before suffering the catalytic inefficiency of 60%!  Without a multi-year soak period, one could not hope to get enough DMBD into a URD-size cable to provide multi-decade life.  Rather than diluting the product to solve the corrosion problem, the other guys should switch to an acid catalyst.  Oops, they can’t, because we invented and patented that.  (U.S. Patent 7,700,871)

b.    Comprehensive answer:  See DMDB Doubts

Come out of the wilderness into the light.  The truth is well documented.  I don’t mind setting the record straight – that is what I do for a living.  I am not above having a little fun myself though, so I would like to ask a favor of you.  Wonderer, I would like to plant a question for you to ask the next time you participate in a wilderness webinar:  "Why was Novinium the only firm to participate in NEETRAC’s side-by-side rejuvenation test?"  All rejuvenation vendors were invited.  Instead of casting stones in webinars they could have put their technology directly against the technology leaders.  Here is the answer relayed by NEETRAC in a project conference call:  "[The invited supplier] chose not to participate citing 'business and commercial reasons.'”  Satisfied?

Concluding Crazy Competor Claims,

Thermonuclear

P.S.  I decided to create a whole new category within my blog to address Crazy Competitor Claims.  It will be like a rejuvenation myth busters!  I will print all civil responses from other rejuvenation suppliers, if they want to engage in a public debate on the merits of the various technology choices.  The other guys are big fans of mine; they visit this blog all the time.  I suspect they will cite “business and commercial reasons” for not engaging in a transparent dialog.