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)

P1816

Dear Thermo,

What is this swanky “reliability” event that Novinium is sponsoring on the Seattle waterfront in conjunction with the ICC meeting on March 26, 2012?

News in Jersey

Dear Jersey-

First I wish to object to prejudiced policy promulgated by local health authorities. Amphibians are prohibited from attending the March 26^th event to which you refer. Not that I would have any interest in the menu, I won’t eat anything unless it is still moving. The human proclivity to eat long-dead stuff is abhorrent. Forget the food; denying me access to the content is what frustrates my flippers.

IEEE P1816™ is a soon-to-be-approved, “Guide for Preparation Techniques of Extruded Dielectric, Shielded Cable Rated 2.5 kV through 46 kV and the Installation of Mating Accessories.” P1816 starts where most accessory installation instructions end. It defines the best practices for accessory installation that will lead to the highest level of reliability. The P1816 Guide was assembled by circuit owners, component manufacturers, and reliability masters like my Novinium colleagues. On March 26^th, humans who have a stake in reliability will gather to kick-off a multi-part series of webinars that will delve into the details of high-reliability craftsmanship.

Regular attendees of the Insulated Conductors Committee (ICC) will recognize the speaker’s names as authorities on the subject of reliability. Vern Buckholz, an expert on neutral corrosion, Glenn Luzzi of Richards Manufacturing, and expert on cable accessories of all types, Harry Orton an expert on sources of reliability problems, Mike Smalley of WE Energies, a P1816 Co-chair, and Bill Taylor of 3M, an expert on splices and terminations, are just some of the proficient people who will be introducing the topic and setting the stage for a year of informative webinars designed specifically to spread the gospel of reliable craftsmanship. The webinars will be designed for the craft-folk that largely determine the post installation reliability of underground cable components. Management and engineers should plan on attending too, because there will be revelations for all.

Select attendees will also be given access to Novinium’s state-of-the-art eLearning “Cable Prep Course” based upon P1816 at knovinium.com and a companion field guide. If you have not been invited to this invitation-only event, contact your Novinium sales professional at novinium.com/Contact.aspx. To see the agenda click here.

Unable to attend myself, but there in spirit,

T. B. Frog

Real World IV – NE Utilities – finally a ray of sunshine

In my last post of 2011, Wondering in Western Washington, questioned the merit of the claims made by UTILX^® in a document titled, “Life Extension Estimate for UtilX^® CableCURE^® Rejuvenation Fluid.”  That document includes 17 pages and numerous claims. In this fourth in a series of five posts, I consider two paragraphs on page 15 devoted to some “real, real world” data provided publically by Northeast Utilities, Connecticut Light & Power subsidiary.  The author devoted the previous 14 pages to the “Duke Deception” and the “Dominion Dodge,” each a poster child for the Wikipedia entry for “Non-representative Sample.” We saw that those two examples were displaced from the “real, real world” by 20X to 240X! So here is what the author said with his characteristic flair about his third and final example:

Part Three:  Connecticut Light and Power Co. Published Success:

Part One of this paper demonstrated that the fluid content contained in a cables' insulation even many years post injection is very high. Part Two of this paper demonstrated the long term effectiveness of that fluid on real cables that underwent real world ageing. Part Three of this paper shows a published real world accounting of the effectiveness of treatment on a real world population of cables. This accounting was performed by Connecticut Light and Power Co (CL&P). It was presented in the spring 2008 ICC and published in those notes. The spreadsheet describing their injection program success has been included as Appendix C of this report. That spreadsheet makes the following points.

CL&P has been carefully maintaining the failure records of the cable they consider to be 'at risk' since 1995. They began their injection program in 1999 selecting cable from that same pool of 'at risk' cables. Although the appendix includes a detailed breakout by year, the summary is succinct. From 1999 to 2007 the pool of at risk un-injected cable totaled 7.8 million feet upon which they experienced 2512 failures. From that same pool of at risk cables, 2.1 million feet had been pulled for injection. Across that same time period there are only 43 failures experienced on the 2.1 million feet. The un-injected pool is suffering a failure rate per foot of cable that is larger than 15 times greater than the cables that have been injected.

The first two sentences are of course untrue. Part One and Part Two demonstrate that under conditions unrepresentative of typical cables and in the least demanding of applications, PMDMS (phenylmethyldimethoxysilane) fluid works quite well. What this frog struggles to fathom is why the author didn’t just stick to CL&P data. The CL&P data show the profoundly positive impact that PMDMS fluid has on, dare I say it, real world reliability. The post injection failure rate is 0.7% and it is does represent an over 15-fold improvement over the untreated cable population. In the interest of transparency, I have attached the CL&P data to the bottom of this post.

Conspicuous by its Absence

What’s missing from the “Life Extension Estimate for UtilX^® CableCURE^® Rejuvenation Fluid” document is any analysis that shows the “real world” concentration of treatment fluid in the CL&P cables. This would be the proper way to draw together the Duke, Dominion, and CL&P data. At Novinium, we don’t have to make measurements to know what the concentration profile looks like. We have two U.S. Patents (7,643,977 and 7,848,912), which allows us to calculate the profile with uncanny precision. If the author were to make a measurement, it would not support his narrative. The author would find that the concentration of fluid found in the Duke transmission cable and the unloaded 35kV Dominion feeder cable are substantially greater than that found in a similarly aged 7-strand or 19-strand CL&P URD cable. I should think the author would want to revise his thinking.

In any case, there is good news. For non-demanding applications in cool mesic soils such as those in Connecticut, even the first generation of fluids performs admirably. Novinium offers the same PMDMS-based treatment fluid with several safety and performance improvements. We call our PMDMS-based material, Perficio™ 011 fluid. Numerous improvements in the next generation of technology made by the Novinium Masters of Reliability™ provide up to twice the life and twice the post injection reliability with the Ultrinium™ 73X fluid family. What do the “real world” folks in Connecticut use today for their rejuvenation program? To find out you will have to ask them, but I can say that I have added granite to my habitat.

In my upcoming fifth and last post on this thread …

Real World V – Irrefutable Proof, …

I will provide a final peer review and editorial of UTILX’s “Confidential and Proprietary” document.

Until then,

T. B. Frog

80-20120127_Real_World_IV-NE_CLP_Cable_Injection_Program.pdf (8.14 kb)

Flowing Through Splices

Dear Wisest of Frogs,

We have been proactively injecting cables with the unsustained pressure rejuvenation for years.  Many of the cables we seek to treat have existing splices and we have always attempted to flow through the encountered splices. I understand that Novinium will use the same approach if required by the circuit owner, but you seem to frown upon the practice. Why the frowning face? Why will you inject through splices if you don’t think it a productive practice?

Seeking the easy way,

Qui Transtulit Sustinet

Dear Sustinet-

Any state that has a Latin motto is a state near and dear to me! The most common translation of the Connecticut state motto is, “He who is transplanted still sustains.” And what the heck is that supposed to mean?  The origin of that motto is uncertain, but with my skills in Latin, I have an alternate translation that better captures what its framers had in mind – to wit, “A splice replaced is more reliable.”

There are three inherent uncertainties about flowing through unexcavated direct buried splices.  The first uncertainty: One seldom knows what kind of splice is there. Design and compound chemistry are the most common uncertainties. Splices might fall into one of three categories – okay, bad, and ugly.

The second uncertainty is the quality of the craftsmanship that went into the splice.  Some circuit owners have had very few component failures.  Is your firm one of the lucky few?  Novinium’s master craftsmen are all trained and certified to exceed the emergent IEEE P1816™, “Guide for Preparation Techniques of Extruded Dielectric, Shielded Cable … and the Installation of Mating Accessories.”  Novinium had a hand in the creation of the P1816 Guide and is the only firm in the world that offers training and certification to the Guide. Novinium shares this knowledge on its eLearning website at www.knovinium.com.

Finally, while air pressure tests are typically employed to confirm that a splice or splices in a cable will support a minimum anticipated pressure, it is not possible to know with certainty whether rejuvenation fluid, with its inherently low surface tension, will leak across the splice-cable interface. The leaking of a dielectric fluid across an interface has one certain issue and two potential issues.

• Certain issue: The quantity of fluid intended to treat the cable insulation polymer will be less than planned. If the leakage is significant, such a leak will reduce the anticipated post-injection life of the cable.
• First potential issue: Leaking fluid may carry particles, such as suspended carbon black or aluminum oxide, along the splice-cable interface. Such particles may contribute to interfacial tracking.
• Second potential issue:  Rubber splices absorb a substantial amount of treatment fluid intended to treat the cable.  This phenomenon was described in the November 1, 2005 paper “Improving Post-Treatment Reliability: Eliminating Fluid-component Compatibility Issues” presented at the ICC C26 Discussion Group. Click here to get a complete picture of this issue.

The Novinium masters of reliability seek the unattainable – perfection – 100% post injection reliability.  We are at 99.4% today and climbing. See Crow for the data. If you are attracted to the idea of kicking today’s problems down the road for your successors to deal with, you might want to consider a career in U.S. national politics. The electorate has a proclivity to elect folks that are unwilling to deal with problems, even when they are easy to recognize. Unlike the beltway crowd in D.C., this frog doesn’t believe in kicking today’s issues down the road only to address them again later – fix it, fix it right, and fix it right now!

To circuit owners, I dispassionately explain the economics of the two approaches and do a little cheer for the most economical approach.  The circuit owner decides and I say, “Yes, ma’am!” At the end of the day, some circuit owners are devoted to a less enlightened path. I believe this is generally so because of inertia.  That is, flowing through splices has been practiced for two decades, and it works decently enough. The economics are more favorable than replacement alone. Once circuit owners experience the more enlightened Sustained Pressure Rejuvenation (SPR) approach and get a chance to enjoy its benefits, it is generally embraced.

In a future post I will explain Integrated Rehabilitation, which is the ultimate approach to rehabilitating underground cables.

Reliably Enlightened,

T. B. Frog

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

Dweller of the Desert asked 22 questions in his post …

Middle East Query – 22 Questions.

In this installment I address question 8.

8.   How do you rejoin cable ends after an old splice is removed?

Novinium injection technology is compatible with most splices.  Click here to view two lists of Novinium Certified components.  On that web page Table 1 provides a comprehensive list of dead-front terminations and Table 2 does the same for splices.  If your splice of choice is not found in the table let me know and we can initiate the certification process.  Depending on the circumstances there are several ways to replace existing splices:

a.   Carefully remove the current splice body covering and split off the current connector.  Using our special connector cut-off tool it is possible to preserve the existing conductors.  In many cases a non-repair connector and splice can be installed to replace the old.  If some slack is needed to complete the repair a longer repair connector and a repair length spice can be installed.

b.   Cut out the current splice and replace it with two splices and a short piece of cable in between. This method is generally required for hand-taped splices, where there is legacy damage to the cable within or near the splice, or where a significant amount of slack is desirable.

c.    I-Joints, J-joints, and H-joints are available for multiple cables spliced at one point.  Such modular joints are inherently longer than other splice types.

No matter which of the choices above are executed the cable-connector interface is permanently sealed to keep rejuvenation fluid in and water out with Novinium’s injection adaptor or IA.  The IA enjoys three U.S. Patents (7,195,504, 7,538,274 and 7,683,260) and their non-U.S. equivalents.

Pride is a sin unless you are a craftsman.  Novinium’s craftsmanship is without peer.  We were leaders in the pending IEEE P1816™ “Guide for Preparation Techniques of Extruded Dielectric, Shielded Cable Rated 2.5 kV through 46 kV and the Installation of Mating Accessories.” We are the only source in the world for training compliant to the emerging P1816 guidelines.  Check out our e-learning site at knovinium.com.

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

T. B. Frog

IEEE P1816 is a trademark of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers.

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