My Projects
Hydrophobia
Life Extension
Thunderbolts
Bubbles Fun?
Hydrogen Generator
Sunflowers
R&D 100 Award
Going Public!
Concluding Remarks
Pictures
If you have gone through
‘My Life Bits’ already, you will notice that I am continuing with my life story
in a different way. Here I give details of my Industry Research (having already
described my academic research). For many of you this many not be appealing
because it contains technical matters that few are familiar with.
So what shall I do? I’ll
try to make the description of the projects as human as possible. Secondly,
I’ll try to relate the projects that reveal some connection to your daily
lives. You’ll learn of the challenges
in research as well as the rewards. You may or may not be in an R&D career,
but may be curious, ‘What does a Researcher do?’ You will find some answers to
that here.
Basic research, as I had
pointed out earlier, is important but companies prefer to fund applied research
which can not only pay for the investment but also generate new income.
Industrial firms and pharmaceutical companies stake billions of dollars to
develop new products and new cures.
Once I got into
Industry, all my research was applied research. The projects came from the need
to develop new and improved products as well as solving critical problems.
I joined the Electrical
Manufacturing Industry in 1977, but my job was related to just one type of electrical
equipment: the Transformer. Most of you have seen one in your neighborhood on
the ground or on poles. These provide the line voltage necessary to run our
home electrical systems and gadgets. Occasionally you may have seen much larger
units in substations where a lot of mysterious looking items are found. We are
afraid to go near them, and we should be. They carry very high voltages. The
heart of a substation is a large transformer; actually there could be several
in a substation. The high voltage power
lines you see overhead carry very high AC voltage for long distances, but where
does the high voltage originate? The answer is, from a Generator which could be hydroelectric, coal
fired station and so on. The typical voltage produced is 2,500 volts, and a step-up transformer or a series
of such raises the voltage to as high as 800,000 volts (800 kV).
I just happen to be
posted at the world’s largest Power Transformer Plant as a Development Engineer. I was a Chemist in an electrical
world. What was I going to do, especially in electrical research? As I had
mentioned above, it was not my choice. I had to take whatever came my way when
I desperately needed a job. Of course, I sounded to my employer eager to take
the offer so that I could do some useful work there.
Talk about timing! I was at the right place at the right time.
They had no chemists there in the Plant, and they thought they never needed
one. There was a chemical engineer who
took care of the processing machinery. My boss, the Development Engineering
Manager, had started a Materials Lab a few years ago with a technician who had
a B.S. degree in Biology who was really smart in venturing to other fields.
There was also a high voltage electrical testing lab with technicians.
Mechanical strength testing was introduced to test the strength of paper and
pressboard materials that were used in transformers. A large power transformer
looks like a big beast with horns (the bushings), but inside it is a huge iron
core and coils which are made of copper conductors wrapped with paper tape;
heavy pressboard barriers and support structures are also inside. A transformer
either steps up or steps down voltage, and for this two coils are needed, one
with larger number of turns, and the other with fewer turns. The transformer
works on the principle that when current flows through one of the coils, the
other coil which is not connected to it automatically becomes a current
carrying coil; If this coil has fewer turns, it will have a lower voltage. If
this coil is connected to the line, the transformer will act a s a step down
transformer.
That’s not all. The
transformer should not have anything that leaks away power. Even air would be a
conductor at high voltages. So the interior of these transformers is filled
with an insulating fluid which also acts as a coolant because transformers
generate heat.
Over long period the
paper insulation and the oil would deteriorate and weaken the electric
strength. Beyond a point, the deterioration could be too much for safe
operation. A normal transformer is supposed to work continuously for 30 to 40
years. The only item that is periodically changed is the insulating fluid.
Petroleum based ‘transformer oil’ is the most widely used fluid. It is
electrically pure and has high electric strength. Several billions gallons are
used worldwide in transformers.
Besides normal aging of
the insulation, there are abnormal aging conditions resulting from fault
conditions. Any internal shorting, moisture and air, abnormal electric stress
etc could be responsible. External conditions such as storms, especially
thunderstorms can knock down a transformer, and you all know the consequences:
power loss. The electric utilities try to replace damaged transformers as quick as possible to restore power.
So you should be
somewhat interested in my transformer related research. My job was to make the
transformer more reliable, and to detect fault conditions before they occur.
Also, once failures and problems occur, I need to solve the
mystery. My work with large transformers was particularly important because I
was trying to keep those units working properly for millions of people who
needed electric power. Only when you
read about some of the projects
I did you will appreciate what the impact of some of my research is. Let us
begin one thing at a time.
Whoever heard of
transformer doctors? These are people
who diagnose transformer faults and prescribe remedies.
At the Plant where I
started to work, they were making million
dollar worth transformers for substations. They need to handle very high
voltages close to half a million volts, and this puts extra demands on their
construction. Heavy insulation barriers, extra dryness and so on are needed.
After building each unit a rigorous testing protocol is followed. If it fails
in any one of those tests, the unit has to be reworked or the problem
corrected.
One of the ways the
condition of the unit could be tested was to test a sample of oil taken from
the unit and test it in the lab for any unusual gases dissolved in it. These
gases, if present, would indicate some overheating or electrical discharges.
The gases are produced by the degradation of the paper/oil insulation which produces under fault
conditions hydrocarbon gases (from petroleum oil), carbon oxides (from paper)
and hydrogen (from electrical discharges). It is possible to identify the type
of fault by dissolved gas analysis or DGA as it is called.
The DGA technique had
been introduced a few years ago, but factories had not started using it. Before I was hired they had purchased the
equipment for gas analysis, an analytical instrument called gas chromatograph
(GC). An electrical engineer was trying to set it up, but he did not make much
progress. It was at that point I came to the Plant, and I set the GC up because
it is a chemical instrument. I also setup a gas extractor because the dissolved
gas has to be first extracted from the oil before it can be analyzed by the
GC. The honest truth is, I had never
operated a GC; my Ph.D. and postdoc work never needed a GC. Yet, after some
reading I was able to set it up. Here is the irony: I had worked for two months
in a Mining lab, and they had a GC there. The supervisor there would not let me
touch it though I had the highest technical qualification there. He had a
technician whom he had trained, and no one else was to touch the GC. There was
more to it than I care to say.
To the engineers I
became a Star. In the factory color brochure I became the centerfold with my
color picture of doing gas analysis. I had not only job security but also some
bargaining power which I did not forget to use. That is how I became a Senior
Engineer there in a few years, a position reserved
normally for true engineers with a lot of experience. I was allowed to even publish papers and go
to technical conferences, something not done before. Ever since, I have
continued those activities. Travel was always fun for me and I made sure I saw
the sights in each place I visited. I was not going to wait till retirement or
vacations to go to places.
Anyway, I gave valuable
advice on transformers that ran into problems, and proved how valuable the lab
could be. I wrote a technical brochure on gas generation from fault
conditions which became a valuable
brochure for the engineers.
Water is not Friend, but
Enemy No. 1 for transformers. Water is not an insulator, but a conductor, and
water absorbed in the paper and oil could cause almost an instant failure of a
transformer. So every effort is taken to keep water out of it. But in spite of
the best efforts to keep a transformer dry, excessive moisture can be present
under certain conditions. A routine oil sample test could reveal
excessive moisture in the oil, and indirectly in paper in contact with the oil,
but someone needs to go to the transformer in the field or substation and take
a sample and bring it back to a testing lab. Electrical tests also can reveal
moisture, but is not practical when the transformer is operating.
These days the
electrical utilities want to monitor critical units in substations, the
priority being given to generator step-up units, particularly those in nuclear
power stations. They would like to attach on-line sensors to monitor gas
generation, temperature, and so on. I did work on an on-line gas sensing device for a while but it had to be
abandoned later on because the sensing device was not performing well. There
are now other devices in the market.
I pioneered on an
On-line Moisture Sensor which became a
success. What I did was to test some humidity sensors already available for air
humidity. No one thought these could be used in oil. I found a few that worked
in oil, and the manufacturer of the device was quite surprised. I had already
worked on moisture related issues in transformers and had published some
original papers. After I had researched on the moisture sensor, additional
software enabled me to remotely monitor
moisture in oil in operating transformers. However, my Company decided to give
away the technology free to a Partner, and some other companies secretly took
the sensor technology and made their own devices. The only thing I have is my
publications on it. They all got it free! I tried to patent it, but our patent
lawyers did not favor it.
Anyway, I am proud of
the sensor I developed.
Large transformers are
worth several million dollars a piece.
Would you like them to fail after just a few years? No. You want to use them
for long periods, say 30 to 40 years.
There are many thousands
of aged transformers operating out there, and one by one they will stop
working; death is inevitable for transformers too.
But preserving the life,
and even extending it are feasible goals. A lot of the technical presentations
I hear these days are on this subject. Even I give such presentations, and
consult on it. There are service groups
that evaluate the condition of aged transformers (only expensive ones) and
advise the utilities which ones are risky. They check the operational history
from the records, check the insulation structure and so on to assess the
condition.
One of the most decisive
tools in diagnosing the condition of paper insulation is by a measurement
called Degree of Polymerization (DP). This is a number that represents the
molecular chain length of the cellulose polymer that makes up paper. You don’t
need a microscope to do this! All one
has to do is to dissolve a sample of the paper in a special solvent (you have
no idea what solvent would dissolve paper, but there is a purple colored
solution which is a complex of copper and an organic compound,
‘cuprethylenediamine’ (don’t bother to memorize this!). Once you dissolve it
with some effort, the solution is run down through a capillary tube, and the
running time between two marks is measured. You also find the running time of
the pure solvent. That’s all. A special glass tube called the Viscometer is
used for this. From the running times you can compute the chain length using
some mathematical relationships worked out by researchers.
I got familiar with the
DP technique as soon as I got my new job because my technician was already
using it. But I used it for investigations and wrote the first paper on it for
the electric industry in America. My 1981 paper was presented at the Electrical
Insulation conference, a bi-annual event. This conference used to select
outstanding presentations and videotape them for later use as teaching
material. Because my presentation was not only informative but was also done
well, they selected mine for that year. This tape is still available for anyone
to rent from IEEE (the technical organization of Institute of Electrical and
Electronic Engineers). I took my membership in 1981, and in 1991 became a
Senior member.
I have done some
research projects combining the DP technique with others. One problem with the
DP technique is that it is not possible to take a paper sample from an aged
transformer while in operation. Even when it is shut down, one cannot go
inside. Only when units are repaired one has access to those paper wrapped coils.
In the 1990s and even
earlier some researchers had found that paper degradation would produce some
minute quantities of chemicals called furans which are intermediate products of
decomposition. They aged paper in oil and measured the DP and furanic content
of oil, and came up with correlation charts. These charts were immediately
hailed as the solution to the problem of direct paper sampling. However, my
research showed that there are several complicating factors. Others have
started realizing it too.
You heard it right! I am
talking about thunderbolts inside transformers that cause it to fail, not
thunderbolts from thunderstorms, though they can also hit transformers. The
first instance of such an event happened in USA in 1982 in Texas. At east this
was the first documented case.
No wonder there was
panic; not only was power knocked off for a wide area, but fire damage was
extensive in the substation. No one knew the cause. The transformer was only a
few years old and was performing well. There were no thunderstorms or other bad
weather.
My Company was notified
because it was our Company’s product. We had an obligation to investigate.
However, only post mortem inspections could be done. The insulation structure
did show marks of electric discharge tracks.
The Japanese had
reported in the 1970s some transformer failures from what they called static
electrification. Inside the transformer ‘thunderbolts’ were produced by oil
flow in the insulation structure. The friction of the oil with the paper would
cause charge separation, and the paper would become negatively charged, the oil
positively charged. This is what happens when we walk on a carpet: charges are separated,
and we acquire one type of charge, and subsequently when we touch a door know
we get a shock. Thunderclouds are electrically charged because falling water
droplets rub the air and charge is separated (by removal of electrons). When
the charge accumulation becomes excessive, there will be a massive
discharge which we call thunderbolt or
lightning. The purple color we see is the discharge in the air medium.
I happened to get
involved in static charge problem in transformers at least two years before the
Texas failure. That time we had an incident of static electrification in
transformers at the Plant. A number of large units filled with oil had been
stored outside ready for shipping. Someone would periodically turn on the pumps
for oil circulation. One night the operator heard some discharge noises and
reported it to the management. The next morning the engineers rushed to the
units and detected with their meters electric charge generated. Only half of
the dozen or so units showed the charging phenomenon. My boss, the Development
Manager, soon got involved. What was he going to do? He was aware of the
Japanese problems, and had even authorized a research project involving the
study of the charging properties of oils. Not much came out of it. That was
just a year before I was hired, and the research had been done in the Central
lab.
There was no time to
waste. Static charge was no more a curiosity, but a threatening event! Since we had the Materials lab I went with
the technician to collect oil samples from the units. The Japanese had found
that some oils are high charging. We didn’t have a device to test charging
property of oils. We devised a crude setup: force-filter oil through a metallic
funnel and measure the voltage developed on the funnel. By this device we
ascertained that those units which had discharges had a higher charging oil
than those without discharges.
I had to do some
detective work to find out what oils went to the units. There were two types,
and one type was high charging. We contacted the oil supplier who told us their
oil was perfectly all right. Their oil
had met all the known criteria for transformer oil. But there was no standard
developed for charging property of oil, and there was no device either to test
this property. The failed Texas unit had the same high charging oil. In order
to prevent further field failures from static charge my Company advised all
utilities to replace the high charging oil.
But before doing that we
had to come up with a reliable test device. Our literature search revealed that
the US Naval research lab in Washington, DC had been testing jet fuels for
charging tendency using a device called the Exxon Mini-Static Tester. So I
immediately visited the lab (I remember I almost lost my flight from Indianapolis
because I was unaware of the time change) and saw how they tested jet fuel.
There had been some explosions when jet fuel was transferred through hoses, and
the lab researcher was trying to find the cause and remedy. It was a simple
device. The fuel was forced through a half inch wide filter paper circle
encased in a metal holder screwed on to the tip of a large syringe (50 ml) at a
certain rate. Electric charge produced on the filter was measured using an
electrometer, and the ‘charging
tendency’ was estimated. I returned to my lab and made a similar device, but
used a filter paper closer to the paper used in transformers, and made other
improvements. This Mini-Static Tester has become the standard testing device
worldwide because of its simplicity and repeatability. I have still the
‘Model-T’ with me.
Our lab performed many
hundreds of charge measurements, evaluating all the new oils as well as oils
from field transformers in order to advise which oils were good and which ones
bad. We discontinued immediately our oil supplier whose oil was high charging,
and this supplier later on went out of business. I shall tell you later more
about high charging oils.
Back to the Texas
transformer failure. Two weeks before the failure I was presenting a technical
paper on static electrification properties of transformer oil based on our
in-house research. The meeting (IEEE) was sponsored by Texas Utilities and was
in Dallas, but none from TU attended my presentation because it was not of much
interest to them. The presentation was on Thursday and many people had left.
After the failure, the
TU folks rushed to read my paper, and the Electric Power Research Institute
(EPRI) in Palo Alto, CA which conducts
major research for the utilities also approached me, and offered funding for an
immediate project. I was thrilled on the one hand, but was somewhat overwhelmed
because this was no mere child’s play. The project had set definite goals such
as finding the cause of static electrification and providing remedies. I was somewhat encouraged because of the
prior study done at our R&D Center, and I had the report with me.
The next three to four
years was busy for me. I had to undertake different studies, some using the
mini-static tester, and others needed the use of a real flow system which could
generate electric charge sufficiently high to cause visible discharges (this I
had to build with help from others). I also had to attempt isolation and
identification of the charge producing contaminant. Every quarter I had to give
an update presentation to the EPRI Advisors and issue a quarterly report.
As I started my work,
EPRI gave contracts also to universities such as MIT and RPI on static
electrification. So the quarterly meetings had professors from these
prestigious universities also making presentations, most of which were filled
with academic jargon and mathematical exercises. I was initially lost, but
later on I grasped what they said. The high voltage physics they used was impressive but did not really help
understand the static charge mystery in transformers.
My flow system assembled
with help from experts enabled me to develop high voltage in a paper tube from
oil flow and study the charge development at different flow rates and
temperatures. I was able to develop as
much as 160,000 DC volts on a two feet long tube, at which point it started to
discharge with sparks. This was real exciting to watch in a dark room where you
felt the whole atmosphere charged. I told my EPRI advisors to come and witness,
but none showed up! So they missed the most exciting part of the tests.
The other part of my
research was to identify the charge producing contaminant. Though I used every available analytical
technique, the contaminant could not be identified. There was evidence it was a
polymer and not a simple substance. Polymers in trace quantities do not really
‘dissolve’ in oil, but remain as colloidal suspensions, and escape the usual
detection methods.
However, I found out
what the ‘Gremlin’ that eluded us was by a real detective work. It turned out
that an organic adhesive had one component that had a high charge producing
polymer, and this adhesive had been used on the paper insulation on the
outside. The exact polymer was identified not by analysis but by examining
each component of the adhesive. This polymer was replaced with another
polymer which was low charging. The EPRI sponsors did not have the benefit of
this knowledge, and my final report does not give this information. Years later
I did publish a technical paper on the polymer that produced high static
charge.
It turned out that the
‘high’ charging oil we had condemned at first was bad only because it had more
‘dissolving power’ of the polymer than the ‘low’ charging oils.
The wide awareness of
static electrification all over the world helped in taking preventive measures,
and we find that failures from static electrification are considerably reduced.
The use of low charging oil, lower oil flow velocities and the starting of
pumps in a sequence rather than all at once are the major measures taken.
I have authored or
co-authored a dozen technical papers on static electrification.
So wrote Dierdre
Rafferty Cullen, a professional engineer in her one page article in the
‘Engineer’s Notebook’ column of the magazine, Electrical World, Nov/Dec 2001 issue. Reading further down you see
that she quotes me several times, and finally reproduces a remarkable graphical
plot that appeared in my technical paper on Bubble Evolution in Transformers
that had been presented at an international IEEE conference in later October of
the same year. I must say that Dierdre had consulted me on this article which
was her idea, and I never knew her in person. She tracked me down! When the
article was published, she was unaware of it, but though I do not get the
magazine, I got an e-mail from of my old colleague in Westinghouse who was in a
different Company in Wisconsin. Dierdre had given my Company e-mail address at
the end of the article, and as soon as my friend got the magazine and turned
the pages he saw my name and address. It was like a reunion after many years! I
tracked down a copy of the magazine soon after.
Yes, bubbles are No-No
in transformers. Bubbles are pockets of gas and vapor, and they have much lower
electric strength. Their presence in the oil-filled equipment would be
hazardous because they would initiate discharges.
There are several ways
bubbles could be generated, and over my long association with transformers I am
aware of all the major sources. Some have to do with improper processing and
oil filling of transformers whereby all the air has not been removed. Certain
oils known as ‘gassing oils’ are prone to gassing and bubble generation.
Another source is the phenomenon known as supersaturation. This is not unlike
what happens in a soda can which is pressurized with carbon dioxide. When we
open the lid, the excess pressure is
relieved, and the gas comes out of the soda as a profuse stream of bubbles.
Many transformers have a
gas space above the oil, and during warm-up more of the gas would dissolve in
the oil because the gas space is compressed. Later on, when the unit is cooled
down, the gas space expands and the pressure is lowered. But the excess gas in
oil does not immediately return to the gas space. Depending on the ‘negative’
pressure in the gas space, a stage could be reached that the slightest
disturbance of the oil could release gas bubbles.
While the above sources
of bubbles were known for many years, only in the last twenty-five years a new
mechanism of bubble generation has been recognized. During summer months the
electric utilities have to overload the transformers, particularly the large
ones to meet the energy demands. This overloading causes a sharp and sudden
rise in the conductor temperature of the transformer. The paper tape wrapped
around it would be heated up suddenly. This has the effect of releasing water
vapor which becomes bubbles. Once this possibility was demonstrated, the
utilities have been concerned about overloading. EPRI funded a project in the
late 1970s on this, and General Electric researchers in their Transformer
Division undertook the study. After several years, they came up with a
mathematical formula to predict the bubble evolution temperature, and hence the
extent of overload, from quantities such as the gas content of the oil and
water content of the paper. They conducted minimal experimental work in the
critical area, and thought they had sound arguments. They considered that a gas
saturated system would produce bubbles much sooner than a gas-free system
because there was already plenty of gas available in the former, and only a
slight heating would be needed to supply enough water vapor to produce the
bubbles. According to their formula, a gas-saturated system could produce
bubbles as much as 50oC lower than gas-free systems. This was a
scary conclusion because there are a lot of high gas content oil-filled
transformers out there. Yet, they don’t seem to fail any more than gas-free
units from routine overloads. The EPRI advisors were skeptical, and they funded
another study on bubble generation from overload using models that resembled
actual transformers. This project was given to Westinghouse transformer
researchers. For a while my colleagues were conducting the initial phases of
this study, but they were getting nowhere. So I was given the full responsibility for the study. I had
very capable electrical technicians who constructed these models and tested
them under overload conditions. These models were encased in large glass test
vessels so we could watch the bubbles. Like a patient in a hospital, the model
had been connected with so many wires and sensors and monitors to follow
temperature and pressure variations and the initiation of bubbles. We had to
make sure the current rose sharply in the coil windings. Each coil model had to
be discarded after each experiment, so many coil models had to be used. We
observed bubble formation at a certain temperature, but this temperature would
be different for different experimental conditions such as pressure, moisture
in the paper, gas in the oil etc. Finally I had a sizeable data on bubble
generation temperatures under different pressure, gas and moisture levels. I
noticed that gas saturated and low gas models had almost the same bubble
evolution temperatures providing the moisture was not excessive. This
completely overthrew the findings of the previous researchers.
I was able to fit all
the data using a complex mathematical formula for bubble evolution temperature
based on three variables. It was just a fit, and could not be derived, though
the major part of my formula had some connection with a previously known
formula derived from experimental charts known as Piper Charts. However, this
connection was not immediately obvious to anyone. I dare say that even the best
computer out there would not be able to fit all my data into a formula. I feel
fortunate that I got this fitting because the formula can be used to predict
the bubble evolution temperature under a variety of operating conditions. The
electric utility will be able to use this formula as soon as it is incorporated
into one of the Standards on Loading of Transformers. I happened to belong the
Committee that revises the Standard
which had adopted the previous erroneous formula.
If you are
mathematically minded, let me give you the formula that I came up with:
T (oK) = [6996.7/(22.454 + ln W – ln P)] – [exp
(0.473W) x (g/30)1.585]
where T is the bubble evolution temperature in
degrees Kelvin (which is oC + 273); W is the percent water content
in the paper, P is the external pressure which affects the bubble, and g is the
percent gas content in the oil. The ‘ln’ means ‘natural logarithm’ and the
‘exp’ means ‘exponential’ You may try
to solve this formula by inputting values for these variables and get the value
of T. Go back to your math books on some of these! All the data points fall within two curves, one for gas free and
the other for gas saturated systems.
As I had stated at the
beginning, I was able to publish a comprehensive paper on my findings in
October 2001, seven years later than I
had wanted to. The reason for the delay was that though I had submitted my
paper much earlier, the referees rejected it for some reason or other, and I
found it difficult to change their mind. Later on I understood the reason.
These referees belonged to the ‘club’ that had published the erroneous results!
Finally, one by one all
of them retired and got out of the way, and in October 2000 I got my first
opportunity to give an invited presentation before the Committee that is
responsible for Transformer Loading Guide revision. It was with the approval of
this committee that I was able to present my paper the next year. So patience
and perseverance pay off!
Don’t you think I had
Fun with bubbles in Transformers? After all, I was trained as Chemist. And
‘Chemists have Solutions’, as they say.
These days researchers
are trying to develop Fuel Cells which use hydrogen gas to generate electric
power. Did you know the best source of hydrogen is not water, but natural gas?
Producing hydrogen from water would need electric power to be used, so it does
not make sense.
I accidentally came upon
a ‘hydrogen generator’ which probably
would never be used commercially. This ‘generator’ is a bundle of coated steel
pieces stacked to some height and heated in a tank of transformer oil. If you
put one piece you would not notice any hydrogen, even if that piece is large.
I figured out that the
thin film of oil between the steel plates decomposes differently from bulk oil
heating. The latter would break down the hydrocarbon chain and produce smaller
hydrocarbons such as found in natural gas (produced by heat from petroleum in
nature). The steel surfaces seem to pull away the hydrogen atoms and attach
them to the surface, later on releasing as hydrogen gas. This observation
solved a great mystery in transformers. Some large power transformers were
producing hydrogen which normally comes from electrical faults, yet we knew
there were no such faults. We had to find the source, and a lab experiment
finally revealed the source as described above. It was generated from the
several feet stack of steel laminates that form the transformer iron core. The
core got overheated, and that caused the hydrogen generation. This was Problem
Solving. I published a paper on it in a prestigious Paris conference in 1998.
The whole electrical world learned of it.
You are now entering a
fascinating landscape filled with sunflowers. But what has it to do with
transformers? A few years ago I gave a fun ‘lunch seminar’ at my Company with
the above title. I had famous paintings of Sunflowers by Van Gogh and Claude Monet
on display; I had vases and soap dishes and so on painted with sunflowers; I
wore a hat with a sunflower on it. Yes,
I was trying to entertain my audience
which consisted of engineers, managers and secretaries. I had to make
everyone happy.
But there was some
serious stuff in my presentation too. I was having a new project which was aimed at using vegetable oils in
transformers instead of petroleum oils. It so happened that after searching
many oils, I came upon a special grade sunflower oil as the best starting
material.
Up to that time my
projects were on large substation type transformers. I came down from my elevated status to the humble street level
transformers that you see as green boxes in your neighborhoods. They all contain
petroleum based oil for insulation. They are sealed, so there is hardly any
concern over oil spills that may ruin your lawn. But there are somewhat larger
transformers near water ways, thousands of them, particularly in coastal areas.
Environmental concerns over oil spills have forced the transformer users to
look for alternate fluids which are
environmentally friendly. There was no such fluid available when one of the
utilities approached our research section in 1995. Well, we took up the
challenge, We got some startup funding, and with that began preliminary studies
of what became a massive three year project with a million dollar funding. If
we researchers do not take up such challenges, we would not have anything to
do!
Vegetable oil is plenty
in nature, and is fully biodegradable. But all vegetable oils are unfit for use
in electrical transformers for several reasons. Vegetable oils are of so many
compositions, and each oil has multiple components, some of which are unstable
when exposed to heat and air for long periods. In a transformer the oil has to
last some 30 years, and must remain in good condition. For cooking this is not
a problem because the oil is thrown away after cooking, and it will be dark
already.
We decided to make the
impossible, possible. We wanted to purify the oil to electrical grade
and to stabilize it for long term use. But we soon learned that both are real
challenges. First, the oils we use for cooking, the ‘food grade’ oils are not electrically pure; they contain many
conducting materials. These oil shave already gone through rigorous processing
and filtering through clay, so how can we improve on that? Secondly, most oils
have ‘unsaturated’ components that would gel up on heating or exposure to air.
Some oils have more unsaturation than others. Linseed oil used in varnishes
have a very high level of unsaturation, and it has the worst kind:
tri-unsaturates as opposed to di- and mono-unsaturates. Oils with high percent
of fully saturated components freeze fast.
Our first task was to
choose a base oil. None of the commonly known oils were found suitable.
Unsaturation-wise the best oil was olive oil, but even that had 40%
unsaturates! We wanted an oil with high mono-unsaturate content, no
tri-unsaturate and some di-unsaturates. The oil would not be oil without some
unsaturation. It would be a fat.
Our search of oils (we
had to get help from a University in Texas; my Organic chemistry background
also helped) led us to a newly developed variety of sunflower oil. Usually
sunflower oil has a high level of unsaturation. But by selective cross-breeding
it has been possible to raise the mono-unsaturate level to 80 percent, and
remove all tri-unsaturates. This was the best in the market. It was available
in limited quantities. The seeds that produce this oil are planted in
geographically isolated places in the world. In USA, the Dakotas; in South
America, Argentina and so on. I purchased several thousand gallons of this
‘high oleic’ oil (the mono-unsaturate part is the oleic acid ester as in olive
oil). We contracted a university which had an oil processing pilot Plant where
they did purification experiments with different clays. Finally a special clay was selected which removed the
conducting impurities.
The stabilization job
was the hardest. We tried all the commonly used stabilizing chemicals; none
worked. Then we saw a formula developed by Ciba-Geigy chemical company, and
tried it. With some manipulation we found that it worked. The stability test
was very severe. We had to flow pure oxygen at water-boiling temperature
through the oil for several days, and the oil should not darken or thicken or
produce excessive acidic components. We were able to pass the oil with less
than one percent of the additive (more would make the oil electrically conductive).
This oil was developed
for commercial use, so we had to keep secrecy. I had never worked on a project
of this nature. First of all, we had to apply for patents. Any prior
publication would disqualify the patent application. There was some urgency to
apply for patent. We had suspicions some other research labs were also
attempting to develop such oils. Even if they did not want to patent, if they
had developed an oil similar to ours and published the results, we’ll be
finished! And there were some labs which had published papers along this line,
but had not developed what we had done. So we filed for patent. We selected a
trade name for our product. I coined the name, BIOTEMP for BIOdegradability and
high TEMPerature capability. But first I had to have a trademark search to be
done to make sure no one had been using it.
Once the patent
application was submitted we started writing technical papers to announce our
new fluid. We showed samples of it in Trade shows. Another advantage of theses
activities was our competition would not attempt go develop the same product.
We came to know later that a formidable US competition specializing in
Insulating fluids had been working parallel to us all those years, but had
never hit upon the idea of using a high grade oil; they used inferior grade oil which they could not stabilize. They
also applied for patent but stayed away from stability issues. They just supply
the oil in a sealed transformer and seal it. The buyer does not know if the oil
is stable or not! Since they use inferior oil, they can sell for half the
price.
In an article that I
wrote for the general reader of Electrical Insulation magazine (Jan/Feb 2002
issue) I showed side by side pictures of our oil and their oil after stability
test; ours remained clear; theirs darkened and became a gel. I stopped short of
saying their brand name. I had to be careful about exposing our competition.
The US Patent Office
rejected at first both ours and our
competition’s patent applications. The Patent examiner thought what we
had achieved had already been done. It took us one long year of additional
experimental evidence and a study of those ‘prior art’ to convince the Patent
Office to finally grant us some of the claims of the patent. When a new
Examiner came out attorneys resubmitted the rejected claims, and we got all of
them granted. So we have now three patents instead of one. Patent-wise we beat
our competition in two ways: we got ours first; and they got only one, and it
is not even very specific.
Our product is now in
commercial use, and we have a dozen technical papers on it. The most
prestigious of these was at the Paris electrical conference in 1998. Getting
accepted was very difficult, yet for the first time I managed to be in it.
Bonus: Visit to Paris and its sights.
But that is not all. I
get a magazine called ‘Research & Development’. Every year they hold an
international competition of inventions and select the top 100. These are
announced as ‘R&D 100’ awards and a banquet is held in Chicago each year to
honor the winners. The winning inventions are featured in their annual Award
issue. It is a coveted Award. Even though I had read these Award issues of
prior years, I had not paid much attention to them. Suddenly it occurred to me that for the first (and perhaps the
last) time I should enter the competition. I got the entry forms. I needed a
lot of documentation including evidence for commercial use. I used my
presentation skills to prepare a colorful, yet not extravagant ‘Presentation
Package’ for each of the eight Judges who would not know the submitter’s name.
Then I waited.
One day in August of
2000 I got in the mail a letter from the magazine editor congratulating me for
being one of the Winners. There was going to be a banquet in Chicago at the
Museum of Science & Industry in late September of 2000. After getting this
letter I postponed my retirement date from September 1 to October 1.
Preparations were made
for the Chicago trip such as Tuxedo rental, booking hotel and air reservation,
and informing the organizers of my attendance for the banquet. Actually my wife
also joined me and she went shopping for her black dress to match the black
tuxedo. My colleague who had shared the award, and the manager from ABB in
charge of the project also came to Chicago. Though there were only 100 awards,
the participants for the banquet numbered some 600 people. After the banquet it
was time to call the people who had won the award, and the guides took each
group of recipients to the podium where the winning entry was shown on the
screen, the names announced and the award plaques handed out. There was no cash
gift attached; our Company paid for our meals and other expenses. It is was a
great evening. I was proud that at least once I had won the R&D 100 Award.
Three days after the
award, I formally retired from my 24 years of continues job in the Industry.
However, I was allowed to do consulting for the Company and to keep my office.
So my retirement did not feel like a transition. A month before my retirement I
had given a fun seminar to the
Company folks which is
the content of the ‘Career Tour’ you may have already watched on this site.
Some details of the
Award are shown in collages at the end.
Should a researcher just
solve problems and develop products? If that’s all you do, the chances are you
will be forgotten as soon as you retire!
There are several
reasons why you should be your own Publicity Agent: first, your work will be
available to the world at large. A lot of research reports do not see the light
of the day because they are ‘inside reports’. Many Companies do not want the
research reports to be made public.
This is understandable to some extent.
But at the same time, a publication is worth a lot more than a paid
advertisement, so Companies often allow publications without giving away key
items. In other words, Companies get free publicity through publications. The
public gets valuable information on cutting edge research. Future researchers
rely on published work to avoid ‘reinventing the wheel’ and to conduct further
research. Second, you get publicity of your own. This can boost your own
morale, and also benefit you financially through more business, pay raises and
promotions.
But publicity has to be
done thoughtfully. A badly written paper and presentation would leave a poor
impression on the readers and listeners. Consider each presentation as a great
publicity opportunity provided free of charge to you! Make every effort to
write your papers well and make your presentations enjoyable. Use illustrative
tools to the best advantage.
Certainly I have fared
well in the Publicity area because I followed the above concepts. I learned
presentation skills, including the preparation of visuals and delivering them
(I learned photography during my Graduate years). I consider each Conference a
Competition to win! Beyond that, I feel I owe a great presentation because that
is what the people expect.
I don’t need to
emphasize the need for getting Patents for worthwhile discoveries. Though the
patents will be in your name, the beneficiary will be the Company which files it and meets all the expenses
(which can be quite high).
The following chart
illustrates the Going Public process:

In addition, it is
beneficial to belong to professional societies and technical committees where
you can influence many technical decisions on technical Standards and meeting
organization.
My technical papers have
been published in both chemical and electrical journals, and it took a lot of
effort to write the papers, revise them and so on. But it was all worth it. A
complete list of my publications may be found in the section, ‘Expertise’.
I had membership in
chemical societies at first, like American Chemical Society (also I was a
Fellow of the American Institute of Chemists and Associate of the Royal
Institute of Chemistry, England). But later on I switched to IEEE (Institute of
Electrical & Electronics Engineers) due to the change in my career, and I am
a Senior Member. If I were to follow the British style, my name would be
followed by all these titles:
T.
V. Oommen B.S., B.Ed., M.S., Ph.D., F.A.I.C etc.
But in America we don’t
show off our titles.
For ego boosting, (or
out of weakness?) I have me listed in ‘Who’s Who in Science & Engineering’,
‘American Men & Women of Science’, ‘Outstanding People of the Twentieth
Century’(from Cambridge, England), and elected to Sigma Xi (of Scientists &
Engineers), National Geographic Society Member, and perhaps some others. Bear
in mind most of these are not difficult to get; for a listing fee or annual
membership you can join these if you meet the basic qualifications. Many of
them try to sell you expensive plaques, certificates and the whole publication!
They come back to you with greater honors like .Man of the Year!
Some of you may want to
see what kind of publications I have, and for that you need to go to the
‘Expertise’ section. If you want to hire me as a Consultant, you definitely
need to visit there!
Hope you have learned
something from my Projects. At least you learned how varied my research career
was. I had no time to get bored, because the projects kept changing, each with
its own challenge. My success may be
attributed to background study, original thinking, proper planning, analyzing
data, making quick decisions, trying to find a new plan when the original plan
did not work, evaluating results critically, writing reports, making
intelligible presentations, and to Providential circumstances. Miracles do
happen in research, and one must be prepared for that! Getting continuous funding for 24 years was
itself a miracle that repeated each year. Just when I retired, all the
traditional sources of funding ceased! Later on even my lab was dismantled, but
I was not affected in the least. I can do my consulting based on my
‘accumulated wisdom’!
Did I work too hard?
Honestly, not. I never took work home and did not stay overtime. By taking a good night rest, I found able to
function much better than otherwise. Solutions would pop up in my mind, as many
other researchers have testified. Another advantage I had was that I could do
things fast, and write fast. Does that mean I was impatient? May be!
Want to go into
Research?
See below two
attachments.

