Comments from discussion groups
We have many highly qualified members of Cathodic Protection Network.
Most of comments, expressed below, are from people who have been trying to discredit me and block my progress for many years.
I am publishing them here so that followers of Cathodic Protection Network can see the poor quality of argument
offered by people who have paid for membership of 'pseudo professional' organisations.
These are the text comments from discussion groups.
(copied and pasted from Linked In discussions)
Roger Alexander
Owner, Cathodic Protection Network International Ltd
I presented a two day seminar in Iran and a paper to a conference
The seminar related to the pipe-to-soil potential measurement and the lack of a criterion for cathodic protection.
28 comments
Doug Herd
Lead Engineer, Pipeline Integrity - QGC (BG Group)
Did it have any basis in science or was it just your spurious beliefs again?
Rogelio De las Casas likes this
Roger Alexander
Owner, Cathodic Protection Network International Ltd
Everything I said was supported by demonstrations and based on real science.
Ashraf Hawas likes this
Roger Alexander
Owner, Cathodic Protection Network International Ltd
Doug. Why do you use the word 'spurious'. If you would like a Cathodic Protection Network certificate you will have to send a report of the matter that you have studied and that needs to be supported by pictures, videos and evidence that you are capable of putting your understanding into practice. This is in order that you can demonstrate your ability and understanding to a potential client before being engaged.
Doug Herd
Lead Engineer, Pipeline Integrity - QGC (BG Group)
Didn't the European Corrosion Conference reject this paper? I use the word spurious because yet again your delusional pseudo-science has found an outlet when it would be best consigned to the bin, where it wouldn't mislead others who have a genuine, scientific interest in the subject. I believe I have a whole roll of CPN certificates. They're soft, strong and very very long but attract Labrador puppies like you wouldn't believe.
Rogelio De las Casas likes this
Roger Alexander
Owner, Cathodic Protection Network International Ltd
Sorry to disappoint you Doug, but you simply do not understand the science behind corrosion control. I devised DCVG in 1974 in Nigeria when I recognised that it is possible to measure a voltage between two copper/copper-sulphate electrodes when placed in different positions on the ground. This proved beyond any possible doubt that this type of electrode cannot be used in the way described, to meaure the corrosion status of a pipeline. Which of the two is the 'reference potential'? Most of conventional cathodic protection relies on the 'pipe-to-soil potential' measurement that is in fact a voltage between two variable potentials. This means that we cannot relate the reading to a standard scientific test such as DIN50918 that is required to apply the values into the scientific formula and equations that have been codified by repeated observation in science. The seminar simply showed these facts to the 32 delegates, all of whom were professional qualified specialists in corrosion control. This makes it necessary to review all cathodic protection data gathered by such techniques as Close Interval Potential Surveys (CIPS) in which I was party to developing in the early 1980's. When you understand the impact that this seminar has on the corrosion control community you will realise that it makes the paper that I offered to the European Corrosion Conference even more important and relevant to the analysis of data that is gathered globally.
The fact that the European Corrosion Conference committee chose not to publish my paper is not my problem.... it is theirs. I published it on line in any case and it has been reviewed favourably by hundreds of professionals.
Ashraf Hawas
C.P engineer at gasly libyan company
we have gas pipeline and the system is work now impressed current DC by solar cell system to potentioal production, there is aproblem at crossing point with water pipe 12"and we have boinding box(junction box) installed, the reang of reading at along of pipe line between (-1.100 v to -1.400 v), but at this junction about -1.500v Min. to -1.800v Max and sometimes more than 1.800v,, there is no reaction & decrease for voltage when we Mobilization the resistance in the box , and after that we added robben anode near pipe at the box and connected with cable which connected on the pipe line in this case there is small change for reading valuable , but this reading unstable sometimes from -1.400v to -1.600v more than it....Mr.Roger Alexander, we need your advice to solve this problem with me on the pipeline,,,,,,
Roger Alexander
Owner, Cathodic Protection Network International Ltd
please email me and we can help you roger.alexander3@ntlworld.com
Doug Herd
Lead Engineer, Pipeline Integrity - QGC (BG Group)
Ashraf, contact a professional CP company.
Mr Alexander's methods do not represent international standards and are a disgrace to any scientific undertaking.
If you think it's expensive using a professional, wait and see how much it costs to use an amateur.
Roger Alexander
Owner, Cathodic Protection Network International Ltd
According to NACE there are over 30,000 paid up members world wide and they still have not decided on a criterion for cathodic protection. It would be interesting to hear of the basis for the criterion proposed by Pipeline Integrity - QGC (BG group) What is the scientific basis for the use of the copper/copper-sulphate electrode as it is NOT supported by the Nernst equations. They refer to a 'half-cell reaction' and that does not mean that you can take half of the Daniel cell or the subject reaction as described in DIN 50918 and stick it in the ground as a reference potential. By doing this it is merely a known emf in series in a measuring circuit that has an unknown number of corrosion reactions on the pipeline side of the meter and the electrical flux in the ground plus the electrode potential on the other side. Please explain this matter Doug. I have been willing to prove my case in a scientific way by repeated observations of facts and the gathering of data. You will find over 2000 pictures and diagrams and 49 video clips on line to prove my case. Let's see the basis of your opinions Doug.
Doug Herd
Lead Engineer, Pipeline Integrity - QGC (BG Group)
It's not my opinion. I think you'll find NACE has firmly established Cathodic protection criteria. Ditto DIN,BS, EN, AS and multiple other standards agencies.
You're a fraud.
Rogelio De las Casas likes this
Roger Alexander
Owner, Cathodic Protection Network International Ltd
NACE have three suggestions and a legal disclaimer.
Roger Alexander
Owner, Cathodic Protection Network International Ltd
Real science is evidence based, not opinion based.
Doug Herd
Lead Engineer, Pipeline Integrity - QGC (BG Group)
Real science is peer reviewed, and requires the formation of a valid hypothesis with observable, repeatable evidence. The NACE "suggestions" you mention are 3 valid criteria for cathodic protection, namely a polarised potential, a depolarisation shift and a polarised shift from natural potential. These criteria are repeated in a number of international standards, worldwide and independently verified. I understand perfectly the science behind corrosion control, and that's why I am so comfortable calling you a quack, a fraud, a charlatan. If you kept your opinions to yourself it would be fine, but the fact is you go around spouting your nonsense to others who take your opinion as fact. Pictures, diagrams, videos are not proof of anything other than your desperate attempts at self-aggrandisement. You've been to Venezuela, you've been to Iran...where's next? North Korea? I look forward to your next video of electrolysing kitty litter in a brief case with baited breath.....
Please explain 'electrical flux' in the ground. Are you working on some sort of capacitor to perhaps travel back to 1974, when your opinion was less likely to be mocked and ridiculed. Written to the Queen or the UK Government lately, begging for all the 'sham' science behind cathodic protection to be exposed, or have you given that up with your dignity as well?
The fact that you actually go so far as to claim you invented DCVG (John Mulvaney, rest in peace, might have something to say about that claim) and then go on to show absolutely zero understanding of it's function is amazing. There is NO single reference electrode in DCVG. There are two identical references. You could use two pieces of steel so long as they were similar. You're measuring a difference...to establish a gradient field.
The fact that Shell Nigeria has some of the worst corrosion and leak issues in the pipeline industry would also make me question why you think it's somehow relevant that you worked for them....I wonder also if they want their money back.
Doug Herd
Lead Engineer, Pipeline Integrity - QGC (BG Group)
The most widely accepted criterion for protection
of steel at room temperature (the protection potential)
in aerobic conditions is 0.85 V with respect to a
Cu/CuSO4 reference electrode. In anaerobic conditions,
0.95 V (versus Cu/CuSO4) is the preferred
protection potential because of the possible presence
of active sulfate-reducing bacteria (SRB).
Various limitations on the most negative potential
that may be imposed during cathodic protection are
often quoted for high-strength steels (typically 1.0 V
versus Cu/CuSO4 for steels in the 700800 MPa tensile
strength range). The restriction is to limit the evolution
of hydrogen at the structure and thereby prevent hydrogen
absorption with the possibility of embrittlement of
the steel, possibly leading to fracture. The consequence
is that the useful window of potential in which the steel
can operate is severely restricted, especially under
anaerobic conditions.
It must not be assumed that the protection potential
is numerically equal to the equilibrium potential
for the iron/ferrous-ion electrode (Ea). The standard
equilibrium potential (E) for the iron/ferrous-ion is
0.440 V (versus the standard hydrogen electrode).
If the interfacial ferrous ion concentration when corrosion
ceases is approximately 10^-6 M, then according
to the Nernst equation, the equilibrium potential
(Ea) is given by
Ea = Eo + (2.303/2F)RT log(a Fe2+ )
where a Fe2+ is the activity or thermodynamic concentration
of the ferrous cation, R is the gas constant,
F is Faradays constant, and 2 represents the number
of units of charge transferred (i.e., the doubly charged
ferrous ion). Thus, Ea = 0.62 V versus the standard
hydrogen electrode or 0.93 V versus Cu/CuSO4.
This is a value substantially more negative than the
accepted protection potential (0.85 V).
A simple calculation based on the solubility product
of ferrous hydroxide and assuming an interfacial
pH of 9 (due to the alkalization of the cathodic
surface by reaction [3]) shows that, according to the
Nernst equation, at 0.85 V (versus Cu/CuSO4), the
ferrous ion concentration then present is sufficient to
permit deposition of the hydroxide ion. It appears
that the ferrous hydroxide formed will be protective.
Roger Alexander
Owner, Cathodic Protection Network International Ltd
How do you make the measurement required for the application of the Nernst equations in field work? If you look at the schematic in DIN 50918 you will see that the EMF that you are talking about must be measured at the interface between the working electrode and the electrolyte before the measurable charges disperse. It is all very well knowing the science that you mention above if you cannot apply it. The copper/copper-sulphate electrode that we use in cathodic protection measurements at present is NOT a half-cell. In the set up described in DIN50918 it is seen to be a HALF-CELL REACTION which cannot be simple wrenched from this closed circuit measuring technique and stuck anywhere as a reference potential.
You fail to mention the technique recommended by science for measuring the polarised potential that is impossible to implement in the field or that the copper/copper-sulphate electrode is merely a ground contact electrode as shown by DCVG that I invented in 1974-75. This is fully documented and witnessed . The fact that NACE standards were adopted from the time I left Nigeria accounts for the corrosion problems that are there at present and that is why they have asked me to return and train their corrosion engineers in the practical application of cathodic protection to Cathodic Protection Network standards.
Roger Alexander
Owner, Cathodic Protection Network International Ltd
For the benefit of those reading this discussion I would like you all to review the following link http://www.rogeralexander1938.webspace.virginmedia.com/cpn/alcemake/alce.htm
This link is relevant to my invention of DCVG
http://www.rogeralexander1938.webspace.virginmedia.com/cpn/ProcHTML/dcvg.htm
and this link is relevant to all pipe-to soil voltage measurements
http://www.rogeralexander1938.webspace.virginmedia.com/cpn/ProcHTML/proc6.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nernst_equation this link for your convenience
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review
this link to peer review
Doug Herd
Lead Engineer, Pipeline Integrity - QGC (BG Group)
Sorry, please link the Wikipedia entry for DCVG... The one that says John Mulvaney and John Leeds invented the process, not you.
Providing links to your own websites are proof of nothing.
Please provide a link to your peer reviewed, journal published papers.
Roger Alexander
Owner, Cathodic Protection Network International Ltd
Has anyone read a publication of any sort by John Mulvaney? We are told by Dr John Leeds that he was a telecom engineer in Australia who thought od DCVG, but he does not seem to have written anything about it. Dr John Leeds claims that it originated in the 1980's and yet I have the original contract that I awarded to Mark Derefaka MSc to carry out the very first DCVG survey at Bomu Manifold, Nigeria in 1974-75. I have copies of all the documentation of this and other successful DCVG surveys at Rumuekpe and at Aba Railway Crossing supported with photographs and engineers reports. If Doug thinks I am a fraud he should take me to court, but I have no fear of that.
Doug Herd
Lead Engineer, Pipeline Integrity - QGC (BG Group)
You cannot grasp simple scientific terms, or concepts. It's not an argument or a debate, you just simply misrepresent and lie. I suggest you start from first principles. Your whole hypothesis is fundamentally flawed.
Doug Herd
Lead Engineer, Pipeline Integrity - QGC (BG Group)
You cannot back up anything with any peer reviewed, published papers.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DCVG
Still not seeing your name anywhere...
Roger Alexander
Owner, Cathodic Protection Network International Ltd
I would like to thank Doug Herd for making a point that I made in the seminar and that is that there is no way to make the measurements refered to Ea = Eo + (2.303/2F)RT log(a Fe2+ ) and therefore we need a method to make measurements that can tell us when corrosion has been controlled. It is all very well to know about positively charged ions and cations etc but we cannot measure them in the field. We are stuck with volts and amps. The three nails demonstration shows clearly how corrosion works and how it can be measured. It also explains interference and the principles of DCVG.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=386j0zgdBTw
This is evidence that can be repeatedly observed and globally peer reviewed.
john Grapiglia
Corrosion Engineer at Corrosion Control Engineering
Sorry - have to buy into this - I put the history of the DCVG in here last time when Roger you were going on about who invented this. There were published papers, the techniques was invented by John Mulvany (please not the correct spelling), and I know as I worked with him at the time, and eventually joined him for a number of years doing DCVG survey in central Australia. There have been papers published in Australia reviewing and comparing techniques, as well as in the UK (I think UK Corrosion '90 had one of them authored by John Leeds). There have been others if you look hard enough.
On the criteria side - this is well established and has been for years!
Roger Alexander
Owner, Cathodic Protection Network International Ltd
Please publish supporting evidence (as I have) and I would like to see the paper by John Leeds as I know him personally. The criteria for cathodic protection has never been definitive, it is a choice of three suggestions that cannot be computed. My own criterion is simple, I measure the point at which corrosion stops in each location dependent on the pH of the soil sample and the temperature at the time of the test. Using the Alexander Cell in the two part test, you can measure the corrosion current and then measure the effect of the cathodic protection and all other influences in that area on the corrosion that you have measured. DCVG merely shows where cathodic protection current is going into the pipeline and is very limited in the assumptions that can be made. DCVG is the voltage between two Cu/CuSO4 electrodes so how do you know which is the 'reference potential'? DCVG invalidates the concept that CIPS can be used to evaluate the corrosion status of any location on a pipeline because you have no reference potential against whoch to make your calculations. Instead of slagging me off, and disputing who did what when it is about time that main stream specialists addressed the scientific and technical application of cathodic protection to control corrosion.
Doug Herd
Lead Engineer, Pipeline Integrity - QGC (BG Group)
That automatically excludes you.
And you've never published a paper I can find. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, the onus is on you to prove your claim.
That is the scientific method.
Doug Herd
Lead Engineer, Pipeline Integrity - QGC (BG Group)
And per your last point, you seem to be entirely missing the reference electrode point in DCVG. There is no requirement for a single reference electrode, you are merely measuring a DC volt difference between 2 stable poles. It can be whatever you like so long as both are the same and both are stable.
Roger Alexander
Owner, Cathodic Protection Network International Ltd
I have published a load of information on the internet and made this all available to the general public. Have a look for yourself and compare it to the information that you and your organisations have published. My first two publications were two Journals with global circulation and I received favourable responses from all over the world. I was unable to follow these up due to the fact that I was deliberately suppressed by such people as the sentiments of Doug and John on this discussion. I was blocked out of the corrosion control community and had no money.
https://onedrive.live.com/?cid=A8A9AC3E2C6C9A54&id=A8A9AC3E2C6C9A54!110
However, the internet has changed everything to do with science that is now no longer restricted to the self-appointed few who consider that they have the right to 'peer review' everything and reject that which does not suit their commercial interests.
My claims are not extra-ordinary, they are simple logic.
Rogelio De las Casas
Vice-President at R.U.S.T.
Roger, I agree with Dough, I have done DCVG using just the copper bars in water instead of a solution of copper/copper sulfate. Again, you can use any two electrodes meanwhile they are the same in nature. Because what you are looking for is not the potential value but the DC volt difference between the two electrodes. That is why the name of the technique "Direct Current Voltage GRADIENT". I am putting GRADIENT in capital to reinforce the fact that that is what you are doing when you do DCVG, measuring the potential difference between two electrodes, if you divide this potential difference by the distance between the two electrodes you obtain the potential gradient at that location. If now you divide the potential gradient by the resistivity of the soil at that location you obtain the current density at the equipotential surface that is being touched by one of the electrodes. See here? I am not using the concept of reference electrode but only electrode, because that is the concept to be used when you are applying DCVG.
I hope this help.
Rogelio
Roger Alexander
Owner, Cathodic Protection Network International Ltd
With regard to DCVG. The two 'ground contact electrodes' are in series in the measuring circuit and so do not invalidate the measurement that is between the potential of the ground at the two locations that are contacted. In the case of a digital meter the measurement is a voltage as very little current flows through the meter. However, when I devised DCVG there were no digital meters available so I used a very low resistance galvanometer and specified to Mark Derefaka (MSc) that we would note the direction of swing of the needle that we set as centre zero. Charges pass from the high potential to the low potential through the path of least resistance and that is through the meter in this case. In this way we were able to plot a grid of potentials with the three transformers switched separately during each phase of the investigation. DCVG simple plots the potential of the ground and in order to plot this in 3D we set a fixed electrode as the zero for the whole investigation. I have been using this procedure since 1974 and wrote it up for Shell International. I have all the original documentation with photographs and names, so what is your problem. The roving electrode in CIPS is NOT a reference electrode for the purposes of determining the corrosion status of the pipeline.
You are certainly correct Rogelio but the measurement is a voltage between two ground potentials (as the contact electrodes are the same). My point is that when you pass this concept onto the use of a single electrode and use the pipeline as the other 'potential' in the measurement, the copper'copper-sulphate electrode is in series in the measuring circuit and cannot be regarded as a reference potential (as it is in laboratory conditions as specified in DIN50918).
The copper/copper-sulphate electrode is not a 'half-cell' in field use as there are many corrosion cells on any span of pipeline or facillities where contact is made between the metalic block and the electrolyte. Each of the corrosion cells has an anode (working electrode) and a cathode (return electrode) and if there are ten such cell in the measuring circuit the copper/copper-sulphate electrode is and 11th of a cell, and the measurement that is made cannot be computed. This was the subject of the seminar that I presented and it will be repeated in at least 3 other countries on two other continents. I publish and discuss all these matters on the internet and have over 1000 followers that I know about. My web pages receive in excess of 100,000 hits and downloads so I cannot be accused of not publishing for peer review.
Rogelio De las Casas
Vice-President at R.U.S.T.
Roger, you are mistaken again: WHO TOLD YOU that you can pass the concept of DCVG to pipe to soil potentials. DCVG is electrical measurement in nature meanwhile pipe to soil potential is an electrochemical measurement in nature. Please, do not mix both concepts.
And please, stop repeating yourself again and again. Hitler and Fidel Castro had millions of followers and it does not mean that they were right. There have been thousand of leaders in the course of history that have done bad and pretty bad to society in many aspects and always having thousand and millions of followers, which does not mean that they were right. Please, stop that crap already.
Rogelio
john Grapiglia, Gary Strack like this
Roger Alexander
Owner, Cathodic Protection Network International Ltd
We make the measurement with the same ELECTRICAL instruments in both DCVG and CIPS. 'Pipe-to-soil potential' measurements have always been made with electrical meters and instruments as there is no way to measure 'ions' or electrons. An osciloscope is a method of tracing the passage of electrons as they illuminate the screen of a CRT osciloscope but the user has to set the zero as the value is a VOLTAGE between two variable potentials. Please describe how we can measure a single electrical potential. Please describe how we can see ions and electrically charges particles in field work. I am governed by the rules of nature and not the opinions of a small group of self appointed 'elite minds' who 'peer review' to suit their own commercial purposes.
Doug Herd
Lead Engineer, Pipeline Integrity - QGC (BG Group)
Rogelio, there is no point arguing with idiots. They simply drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.
Yousaid Wat
Provoker of thoughts
In this case the experience isnt technical proficiency, but simply as example of bullshit baffles brains.
Roger, I was beginning to think you had retired gracefully, ah well. I recall a discussion with you last year some time, when I pointed out that not only NACE, but the entire European Union, and all of the industrialized countries of the world had published standards for cathodic protection, in which definitive criteria had been specified. If you had even bothered to read any of those current international standards you would clearly see that your old hobby horse does not hold water.
Man, where in the word did you have to go to get someone to let you present your paper.... goof for your, at least you have conviction in your beliefs,....
To anyone who is interested, don't put your faith in un-substantiated work, look around the word for consistency in international standards and procedures. I think Mr Herd is correct, the paper Mr Alexander presented has been rejected numerous times before including the European Corrosion Federation.
Doug Herd
Lead Engineer, Pipeline Integrity - QGC (BG Group)
I think the funniest thing is that apparently it's a conspiracy by commercially interested parties to use a specific reference electrode. It is true, but exactly the opposite to the way Mr Dodger claims. He's the only one with a patent on the marvellous, astounding Alexander Cell (trademark). And he's welcome to it.
In response to the anonymous remark about the criteria for cathodic protection I would like to invite NACE or other Institute members to define a method by which it can be determined that corrosion has been stopped by the implementation of the application of electrical corrosion control.
Yousaid Wat
Provoker of thoughts
Roger, in support of Derek's challenge to you. Lets assume you are correct when you say "I was called the father of cathodic protection after my successful time in Nigeria in the 1970's..." by simply assuming it, accepting it you have taken ownership of it, you never denied the "title". An honorable man would have denied this explaining CP was discovered over 150 years prior. Furthermore how would the organisers of the Iranian conference in 2014 - more than 40 years later and separated by an entire continent know what you were called in Nigeria unless you actually told them. One must be reasonable deduction therefore conclude that you did, in fact, assume the title of "father of cathodic protection" and try pass yourself off as such (at least in Iran).
Derek is correct, if you do not accept or assume the title, then a respectable person would not have advised the Iranian conference advisers that some or other individual half a world and almost half a century once naively called you that. It would never even have come up in conversation unless you intended it to be used.
I have no doubt that a court of law (British if you like) you so often reference, would have no problem coming to the conclusion that you did, in fact, claim the title "father of cathodic protection" and fraudulently portrayed yourself as such to the orgainsers of the Iranian conference.
Derek Mawhinney likes this
Roger Alexander
Owner, Cathodic Protection Network International Ltd
http://www.pipeline-corrosion-control.com/cpn/halfcell/halfcell.htm
Please respond to this demonstration.
Derek Mawhinney
Project Manager II at Corrpro Companies, Inc.
Your demonstration in the cat litter demonstrates nothing interesting or not easily explained.
The different potentials of the steel measured at the different locations along the steel sample shows that steel surface is not uniform, probably due to corrosion activity.
The different potentials between Cu:CUSO4 electrodes includes the IR (current multiplied by resistance) signal in the cat litter. The source of the current is the corrosion activity between anodic and cathodic areas of the steel.
Now, how about the father of CP claims?
Derek Mawhinney
Project Manager II at Corrpro Companies, Inc.
Professor,
With the ICCP on you see a pipe ON potential of -3.47 volt at the electrode away from the coat defect and -2.47 at the electrode closest to the coating defect. The magnitude of the IR error is caused by the different geometry between the electrodes and the coating defect.
Roger Alexander
Owner, Cathodic Protection Network International Ltd
Yousaid Wat is not a name by which you can be traced so anything you say is totally unacceptable to any court in the world. As for the 'father of cathodic protection' distraction I notice that NACE are now refering to a guy called Kuntz as the father of cathodic protection for stuff he did in the 1930's. NACE is advocating pseudo science and publish disclaimers on the advice they publish. Belonging ot NACE does not give you their protection, all it means is that you have paid money to a group of businessmen in the USA.
Let us get back to the subject of this discussion, the method of measuring the criterion for the effectiveness of cathodic protection. Please show us all how NACE demonstrates that the copper/copper-sulphate electrode can prove that the cathodic protection system has stopped corrosion. According to science, the measurement must be made using a Lugin capillary to the interface between the ANODE (working electrode) of a corrosion cell as any other position would cause an error in the reading that scientists call the IR drop in the electrolyte due to the dispersion fo charges into the volume of the container. THIS IS NOT THE POTENTIAL GRADIENT THAT IS CAUSED BY THE PASSAGE OF THE CATHODIC PROTECTION CURRENT AS DETECTED DURING A DCVG SURVEY.
I have examined and tested many proposals by NACE members and others to address this problem using coupons and fixed distance electrodes. All of these make the measurement at an unknowable distance from anodes and cathodes that are present on all coupons. If yu care to look at the detailed instructions about the manufacture of the Alexander Cell you will see that I have devised an arrangement in which the corrosion current itself can be measured and another model in which there is a built in Lugin capillary to allow a reading in the field as described in DIN50918. I see no reason to pay to have this published by someone approved by vested interests and pseudo scientists when it is being viewed daily by corrosion control specialists all over the world
Derek Mawhinney
Project Manager II at Corrpro Companies, Inc.
The distraction about the father of CP is based on the bio from your seminar in Iran that started this thread.
I understand that Kuntz did interesting stuff in CP before the mechanism of CP was well understood. Show me where NACE calls Kuntz the father of CP.
There are many many papers papers on the CP criteria. It is a thoroughly debated topic within NACE International.
It is very insulting to practitioners of CP when you state "NACE is advocating pseudo science ... "
You have zero credibility with me.
I advise others to not rely on the CP technical advice and training that you provide.
I advise others to no longer be a member of this LinkedIn group that is owned by the self professed "father of cathodic protection".
Roger Alexander
Owner, Cathodic Protection Network International Ltd
Derek Mawhinney. Do not lower your comments to the level of Yousaid Wat and Doug Herd by referring to a plastic tray as a cat litter. If you want my respect you would show your own laboratory.
"The different potentials of the steel measured at the different locations along the steel sample shows that steel surface is not uniform, probably due to corrosion activity." This is totally incorrect. It can only show the potential of the sand is different in each location.
"The different potentials between Cu:CUSO4 electrodes includes the IR (current multiplied by resistance) signal in the cat litter. The source of the current is the corrosion activity between anodic and cathodic areas of the steel." How do you know what the source of the current is. We can only observe a voltage.
"With the ICCP on you see a pipe ON potential of -3.47 volt at the electrode away from the coat defect and -2.47 at the electrode closest to the coating defect. The magnitude of the IR error is caused by the different geometry between the electrodes and the coating defect." This is a very strange explanation because the electrical charges, that we can measure, disperse according to the laws of physics, not pseudo science. These laws determine that charges pass from a higher potential to a lower potential. This is three dinmensional and the tray that you sneeringly refer to as a cat litter was very carefully stratified with different layers of resistivity and pH.
The difference in potential between the positions in the electrolyte was due to the charges flowing to 'remote earth' through the low resistance strata (as happens in real life) and then being drawn from the pipeline metal at the coating fault through shells of resistance as described in many scientific papers that are available on line. I have illustrated this on line in many of the web pages that I have published......have you? Has NACE?
Derek Mawhinney
Project Manager II at Corrpro Companies, Inc.
I recommend that people interested in criteria for cathodic protection read this paper which is available on online at no charge.
Pipeline & Gas Journal
Examining The Controversy Surrounding The -850 mV CP Criteria
By R.A. (Bob) Gummow, P.Eng., Correng Consulting Service Inc. | November 2010 Vol. 237 No. 11
http://www.pipelineandgasjournal.com/examining-controversy-surrounding-850-mv-cp-criteria 404 - File or directory not found.
The resource you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.
I know Bob Gummow. Bob Gummow has smarts and integrity. Bob Gummow is one of the NACE Memebers that held up the publication of the latest NACE 0169. Bob Gummow relies on the -850mVcse polarized potential criterion as I do.
Mohamed Dafea
Director and Principal Engineer at DAFEA Limited
Roger, this is quite a strange view for me, it sounds like you are undermining the value of peer reviews, common industry practices and the knowledge of many qualified experts in such a rich and well-established industry! Go out to the market, talk to experts, respect their knowledge and seek their input through thorough review of your papers. Yes indeed you may have to pay for their valuable time, I assume you do charge for your time too, there is no such thing as free lunch. This is not the place to collect credible technical feedback on your ideas!!!
Derek Mawhinney likes this
Derek Mawhinney
Project Manager II at Corrpro Companies, Inc.
Roger,
You think you got 'remote earth' in a table top pipe to soil demonstration tray with an ICCP system. Wow. This conclusion and many other of your statements and online materials show me that you have a rock solid mental block that prevents you from understanding basic CP potential testing.
Derek Mawhinney
Project Manager II at Corrpro Companies, Inc.
Kuhn's archives were donated to Tulane University in Lousiana.
http://specialcollections.tulane.edu/archon/?p=collections/findingaid&id=533&disabletheme=1
The librarian at Tulane calls Kuhn "the inventor of the process of cathodic protection of corrosive metals. "
I would agree that Kuhn was the inventor of CP for buried pipelines.
It is really very difficult for me to understand why Roger would not correct the record when a bio incorrectly lists Roger as the "father of cathodic protection." Yousaid Wat elaborated very well on the reasons for Roger to disavow the title of "father of cathodic protection."
Julian Rutherford
Corrosion Technologist, EEHA Inspector and Auditor, Instrument and Electrical Supervisor at GPR Corrosion Protection
Hi Roger
If you were willing to send me an Alexander Cell, I am based in Australia. I would happily use this on my pipeline surveys and publish the results in comparison to a standard reference half cell. Send me a email and I will give you my address to send the cell.
Thanks
Julian
Roger Alexander
Owner, Cathodic Protection Network International Ltd
ttp://www.rogeralexander1938.webspace.virginmedia.com/cpn/alcemake/alce.htm This link tells you all about the Alexander Cell and how to make it.
Roger Alexander
Owner, Cathodic Protection Network International Ltd
http://www.rogeralexander1938.webspace.virginmedia.com/cpn/ProcHTML/dcvg.htm THIS IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE
This link tells about DCVG
Roger Alexander
Owner, Cathodic Protection Network International Ltd
http://www.rogeralexander1938.webspace.virginmedia.com/cpn/ProcHTML/proc6.htm
THIS IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE
This link tells you all about CIPS
Roger Alexander
Owner, Cathodic Protection Network International Ltd
This link is to a paper presented at about the same time that I presented my own paper.
http://www.rogeralexander1938.webspace.virginmedia.com/cpn/CorrespondenceCourse/Module05/index.html THIS IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE
Owner, Cathodic Protection Network International Ltd
Mohamed Dafea,
When I was first given a copper/copper-sulphate electrode I saw that the VOLTAGE on the meter changed when I changed the position of the electrode but I had not changed the connection to the pipeline. It does not take a brain surgeon to know that the variable is therefore the electrode and NOT the pipeline. From that moment on I asked every expert and specialist in cathodic protection for their opinions. I read every book and paper I could lay my hands on and made models in order to understand the reality behind what I was doing. I have repeatedly asked 'experts and specialists' to review my work and you have seen a typical result on this discussion group. I have taken my models and theories to the National Physical Laboratory and UMIST in the UK and they have refused to comment publicly. I am not paying for the time of people who have not carried out experimental and field work as I have. Have you read the links I have provided for free?
Roger Alexander
Owner, Cathodic Protection Network International Ltd
Julian Rutherford, You are welcome to make an Alexander Cell without infringing any patent as I have authorised many to make and use them on all continents. You will see that it is simple a corrosion cell with which you can measure the corrosion current. If you look at the videos that I have uploaded you will see how it is used and how you can even make a measurment of the EMF at the anodic interface of the corrosion cell. You will see that this is different to the value measured at the cathodic interface (the return electrode) due to the IR drop within the corrosion cell itself. As I have already stated this is NOT the voltage drop (that is misnamed the IR drop) that is experienced when placing the electrode on the shells of resistance that cause potential variations in the backfill of a pipeline.
Roger Alexander
Owner, Cathodic Protection Network International Ltd
Astrology is a very rich industry but I prefer astronomy because it is based on repeated observations. It seems that the opinions of the elite are more valuable in NACE than repeated observations and demonstrable facts.
Derek Mawhinney
Project Manager II at Corrpro Companies, Inc.
Roger,
That recent posting about your research of existing publications and discussions with many CP experts and them being unable to accept your views shows as clearly as possible that you sir, have a rock solid mental block that prevents you from understanding basic CP potential testing.
Roger Alexander
Owner, Cathodic Protection Network International Ltd
Please explain this.
At the first test post on a 24" dia pipeline I get a reading of -1.2volts between the pipeline metal and the copper/copper-sulphate electrode. I connect to the second test post 1 mile away and I get a reading of -0.98 volts. I take a reading at the third test post another mile away and get a reading of 1.1volts. There are no isolation joints in this section of pipeline and the pipeline metal resistance is 0.02 ohm between the first test post and the third.
If NACE is correct (and the copper/copper-sulphate electrode is a reference potential) the laws of electricity say that it should be possible to calculate the amount of current flowing in this very simple electrical circuit that we are measuring with a voltmeter.
Ohms Law says that volts = current x resistance and therefore current = volts divided by resistance.
We know the volts = -1.2 at the first test post and -0.98 at the second and therefore there is a potential difference across the resistance between the first test post and the second that is a volts drop of .22
Applying Ohms law to this simple electrical measurement we find that there must be 0.22 volts divided by 0.01ohm = 22 amps flowing from test post 2 to test post 1.
Applying Ohms Law to the section between test posts two and three we find that there must be -0.21 volts divided by 0.01ohm = -21amps, that is 21 amps flowing in the opposite direction.
This is clearly wrong and so we have to consider what can be the problem.
The resistance of the pipeline metal is correct.
We are measuring the potential differences correctly.
The copper/copper-sulphate electrode cannot be a constant reference electrode when used in this way.
There must be at least one other potential in the measuring circuit and that must be between the copper/copper-sulphate electrode through the ground to the pipeline metal.
When we move the copper/copper-sulphate electrode we get a different voltage and therefore there must be at least two other potentials in the measuring circuit between the copper/copper-sulphate electrode through the ground to the pipeline metal.
The copper/copper-sulphate electrode is simply a piece of metal in a solution, in series in the measuring circuit. It is NOT a half-cell reaction as required in science. It has a constant reaction potential between the copper rod and the solutions but this is in series in the measuring circuit with at least three variables and so cannot be computed.
The three variables are
The EMF of the corrosion reaction on the pipeline that we are trying to measure.
The potential of the ground due to the passage of the impressed cathodic protection system current.
At least two other causes of ground charges, but possibly five or six causes.
We are making an electrical measurement with an electrical instrument and trying to assess the status of an electrochemical reaction without even trying to include the component that is mentioned in the Pourbaix diagrams.... the pH of the ground in which the pipeline is buried.
We need to be able to measure the corrosion current itself to be able to see if we have stopped corrosion. That is why I devised the Alexander Cell. It is simply a corrosion cell. What is wrong with that?
Yousaid Wat
Provoker of thoughts
Roger, you have posed that question before and I have see a number of individuals try explain it to you, but you simply refuse to be receptive. I think it would be fruitless to try engage you again and clearly this is the fundamental misunderstanding you have and why you cannot understand the fundamental concepts of pipe to soil potential measurements. However, I will offer the following so as to try limit the damage done by your comments to those just starting out in the industry.
The CSE used in cathodic protection is a reference electrode. It is the standard half cell reaction against which the corrosion half reaction is measured in the field, and as such is the reference. The concept of reference against which the pipe (corrosion) potential is measured at a specific location. It is not a fixed point such as a "ground" on a printed circuit board or a single nodes on Mr Alexander's spiderweb of resistors. To try equate its purposes to this is simply a lack of understanding of its purpose. One cannot attempt to apply Ohms' law to different pipe to soil potentials. Just pick up any cathodic protection text, and the concept and application of pipe to soil potentials (as measured against a standard CSE reference electrode). The text should also explain all of the individual corrosion cells and influencing factors that are included in this reading. If in doubt, attend a training course provided by a reputable corrosion organisation such as those hosted by the Institute of Corrosion in the UK.
Derek Mawhinney likes this
Yousaid Wat
Provoker of thoughts
As for the need for the Alexander Cell. There is yet to be a single independent report on its use. Mr Alexander has himself indicated he submitted the device for evaluation to British Gas and another public utility in the UK (I think back in the 1970's), and yet there has never been a report published. Two British public utilities testing the device, without charge to Mr Alexander (40 years ago), and no report.
Mr Alexander, did you receive a report?
Just recently Mr Alexander posts " I have repeatedly asked 'experts and specialists' to review my work and you have seen a typical result on this discussion group. I have taken my models and theories to the National Physical Laboratory and UMIST in the UK and they have refused to comment publicly. "
Mr Alexander, perhaps they are being kind to you by not publishing the findings publicly. I'm sure if they did work, and someone discovered it, someone would be making it and using it somewhere in the world.
Mr Alexander posts " I presented this to the meeting of the InstCorrScTech in London and have published the signatures of 68 corrosion specialists who were present." A simple review of the list simply indicates a number of names written by a single person. Perhaps this was an invite list, perhaps it was a marketing target list, perhaps it was even a simple attendance list from a regular monthly meeting, but it in no way represents "signatures" of those present. It does not mean the attendees even had an interest in the technology, perhaps they just came for the social. Whatever the reason, it certainly does not imply an endorsement of the device that the "father of cathodic protection" was trying to present to society. Simply another misleading statements.
Mr Alexander, you can repeat your testing in your flat as many times as you like, but if you don't change your method, it will remain incorrect and you will continue to receive the same erroneous results. Please pick up a cathodic protection text, anyone, and read it.
Summary
The claim that the -850mVcse current-applied criterion is as effective in controlling corrosion as the -850mVcse polarized potential criterion is not borne out in the published literature.
The effectiveness of the -850mVcse current-applied criterion ultimately relies on the frequency of external corrosion failures, since the corrosion rate is generally unknown. Perhaps there is pertinent data in the corrosion control records of pipeline companies to support the tendentious claims for the continued use of the -850mVcse current-applied criterion but, to this point, such data have not been presented. Thus, increasing the volume of the rhetoric around the merits of this criterion is the only defense to its continued use, despite the fact that there are techniques available to assess the level of protection in terms of corrosion rate or polarization.
It is likely that the controversy and confusion between the merits of the two -850mVcse criteria will continue as long as the current-applied criterion is included in the NACE SP0169 standard and is not included in the ISO standard.
To persist in using a criterion when 1) the expected corrosion rate is unknown, 2) when the original intent to remove the IR drop in the measurement except across the structure-electrolyte boundary is ignored, and 3) to wait for external corrosion failures to assess the corrosion control performance, exposes the public to an unnecessary risk and is therefore, not sound engineering practice.
(end)
Author
R.A. (Bob) Gummow is a corrosion engineer and a NACE accredited Corrosion Specialist, having over 40 years of experience in the application of cathodic protection to a wide variety of structures in many industries. His recent activities have included pipeline projects pertaining to induced AC corrosion and telluric currents. He is presently offering corrosion consulting services through Correng Consulting Service Inc, Markham, Ontario. Ph: 416-630-2600, ext. 245, e-mail: bgummow@corrosionservice.com.
17. J. Mulvany, New Pipeline Coating Defect Surveying
Equipment for Corrosion Protection Assessment, Materials
Performance 28, 4 (1989): p. 17. THIS PAPER DOES NOT EXIST
It is now 12th May 2019 and over the years I have been blocked by people who have vested interests in the qualifications and certificates issued by NACE and ICorr.
I have lost my original web presence by companies discontinuing their free webspace service and so the above links no longer work.
However, I have maintained my presence by purchasing several domains and constructing my own web pages.
http://www.pipeline-corrosion-control.co.uk/index.html
http://www.pipeline-corrosion-control.com/
http://www.pipeline-corrosion-control.com/alcemake/
Link to the 5 day seminar and master classes
Link to my own research and development
Link to some of my own interlectual property
Link to procedures and codes of practice I have originated myself
The system of peer review is easily corrupted when specialists in a field are making money through pseudo science that cannot be confirmed by repeated observations in experiments and the field.
For this reason I have uploaded videos, photographs and drawings of proof that everything I say in this respect is supported by evidencethat everyone can check for themselves with their own instruments ia a laboratory of in the field.
Correspondence Course
My laboratory
My laboratory
My laboratory
My laboratory
My laboratory
Model pipeline
