Subject: Re ? 50 amp remedy (fwd)
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 093411 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To: emfguru@hotmail.com
--------------------------------------------------
........"We need to develop a remedial plan to begin eliminating the use
of the earth as a current carrying conductor."......You heard it first
here!!!....(See Dr. Dahlberg's comments below.)......guru.......
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 09:01:23 -0500 (CDT)
From: Duane Dahlberg
To: Edward Maxey
Cc: "Roy L. Beavers"
Subject: Re: ? 50 amp remedy
Dear Ed:
Thank you for your response and suggested remedy to the large currents on
the pipe line.
>From the standpoint of the dairy farmers and others affected by the
electric currents in the earth, a reduction on the pipe line would mean
that the 50 amps would need to find other paths through the earth in order
to return to the substation. The benefits of such a remedy is a possible
reduction in the direct currents in the region of the pipe line because
less cathodic protection would be required and it would reduce the
concentration of the 60 Hz currents in the pipe line which certainly would
be of benefit to its integrity and the safety of maintenance personnel.
There is no doubt that dairy farmers near such a pipe line would be
pleased with anything that would produce a reduction in current.
In some areas non conducting pipe lines are being used which would
indicate that the electrical integrity of the pipe line is not
necessary. Consequently the coils across the nonconducting breaks may not
be necessary.
Because of the extensive use of the earth to carry current of all types,
it may be necessary to search for a solution that begins with the source
of the problem. In my experience, the potential for effects on living
organisms as well as physical objects from these currents in the ground
has become a very serious problem in the world, and we need to develop a
remedial plan to begin eliminating the use of the earth as a current
carrying conductor.
Duane
On Fri, 31 Jul 1998, Edward Maxey wrote:
> Dear Duane,
>
> First, thanks very much for your insightful remarks
> of July 28th and July 30th (patched below) They
> are quite helpful to a pipeline novice like myself.
>
> Of especial interest is your sentence, "The cathodic
> protection used on all pipelines is in general a direct
> current provided by an electronic rectifier such that
> the resulting direct current on the pipeline maintains
> it at a negative potential with respect to the earth
> around the pipe. "
>
> It would appear that in the D.F. pipeline situation
> there are two separate but conflicting kinds of circuits.
> A) There is an AC circuit of some 50 amperes which in
> all probability derives from the WYE distribution
> system - or more exactly from a nearby sub-station
> in that distribution system. The sub-station's
> grounding includes all metallicly bonded metals in
> the area, including the pipline.
> B) The DC potential is accomplished by a series of DC
> circuits energized by rectifiers placed intermittantly
> along the pipeline.
>
> As per your statement, the DC potential would have
> to be sufficiently high to counter and exceed the positive
> half of the AC 60 Hz current also running in the pipeling.
> Obvioualy, it may require only a small voltage to drive 50
> amperes throught a 10" pipeline, but some potential
> would have to be there and it would have to be
> overridden by the DC circuit if a local constant negative
> potential with respect to earth is to be accomplished.
>
> If this analysis is correct there would seem to be a simple
> and appropriate remedy. Dielectric couplings in the pipeline
> would stop the 50 ampere AC current. Then the DC circuits
> along the pipeline would no longer have to be boosted
> enough to override any AC potential in the pipeline.
>
> If necessary, segments of pipeline could still be metallicly
> bonded across such dielectric couplings provided that the
> bonding was accomplished through a net current control,
> e.g., 11-15 turns of conductor in a toroid winding about
> a laminated silicon steel core.
>
> Such remedies might also be money savers for the
> pipeline company since less energy would be required
> to effect the constant negative potential on the pipeline.
>
> This mental exercise has gotten longer than intended. Even so,
> it would be a real pleasure to have your views on the remedies
> suggested.
>
> Cordially,
>
> Ed Maxey
>
> > Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 10:29:14 -0500 (CDT)
> > From: Duane Dahlberg
> > To: "Roy L. Beavers"
> > Cc: emfguru@hotmail.com
> > Subject: Re: 50 amps in oil pipeline (fwd)
> >
> > Roy:
> >
> > A couple of thoughts from my experience:
> >
> > With regard to sources of the current in the pipeline; In the United
> > States all electrical distribution systems use the earth to carry
> > approximately 70% of the current back to the substations. The current in
> > the earth throughout the country is significant. Studies have been
> > conducted which show that the current on pipelines is, in general, not the
> > result of the malfunctioning of the distributions system but because of
> > the normal use of the earth as a major component of distribution systems.
> > In my work with dairy farmers throughout the country, it is clear that this
> > normal use of the earth as part of the distribution system is having a
> > serious impact on the behavior, health, and production of the cows and the
> > health of the people working on those farms. Even though It is normal to
> > use the earth as a major current carrying conductor in the distribution
> > system it is certainly has become a real problem and is not right.
> >
> > Duane
> >
> > Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 08:03:05 -0500 (CDT)
> > From: Duane Dahlberg
> > To: "Roy L. Beavers"
> > Subject: Re: 50 amps in oil pipeline (fwd)
> >
> > Roy:
> >
> > I forgot to respond to the third question. The cathodic protection used
> > on all pipelines is in general a direct current provided by an
> > electronic rectifier such that the resulting direct current on the
> > pipeline maintains it at a negative potential with respect to the earth
> > around the pipe. One of the reasons for the need of cathodic protection
> > for pipelines is the 60Hz currents on them. Because of the nature of the
> > pipeline some of the 60Hz is rectified to direct current causing the pipe
> > to become positively charged. The cathodic protection current has to
> > neutralize this positive charge. For dairy farmers and perhaps others as
> > well, the direct currents on the pipelines from cathodic protection also
> > reach the livestock through the earth. Obviously these direct currents
> > used in cathodic protection must flow in the earth to complete its circuit
> > and once in the earth, there is no control of where it goes. For dairy
> > farmers either or both the direct currents and the 60 Hz currents on the
> > pipelines are affecting their cows.
> >
> > Duane
> >
> > On Thu, 23 Jul 1998, Roy L. Beavers wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 14:52:42 -0500
> > > From: Edward Maxey
> > > To: "Roy L. Beavers"
> > > Subject: 50 amps in oil pipeline
> > >
> > > Hi Roy,
> > >
> > > A gentleman, D.F., recently contacted me about electrical
> > > problems which he attributed to an underground oil pipe
> > > line that crossed his rural property. He had borrowed
> > > a milligauss meter which had a maximum reading of 10 mG.
> > > This meter pegged at maximum when he was about ten
> > > yards from where he thought the pipe line was buried.
> > >
> > > He was asked to approach the pipe line at right angles and
> > > note the spots where the meter read 5 mG and 10 mG. He was
> > > then to measure the distance between these two spots.
> > >
> > > D. F. later telephoned to indicate that he had measured the
> > > distance between these two marked spots at 34 feet.
> > >
> > > These observations using Biott and Savart's law indicate
> > > a 60 Hz AC current slightly in excess of 50 amperes
> > > in the pipeline.
> > >
> > > Perhaps some of your listees have expertise in oil pipe
> > > lines and might offer suggestions as to:
> > > 1. the source/sources of the AC current,
> > > 2. methods of remedy and
> > > 3. whether or not a DC potential maintained on the
> > > pipeline to prevent corrosion is contributing to
> > > the AC current problem.
> > >
> > > Good wishes,
> > > Ed
>
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.feb.se/EMF-L/EMF-L.html