Editor's Desk Blog

Editor's Desk

The editors of Engineering360 and Electronics360 will share their thoughts with you in this blog. Check back for sneak peaks, behind-the-scenes, and insight.

Previous in Blog: Gravity Slingshot: How One Grad Student's Insight Launched Interplanetary Exploration   Next in Blog: Combined Cycle Power Plants: Is Their Reign Assured?
Close
Close
Close
2 comments
Rate Comments: Nested

Introducing Non-Destructive Testing Tools

Posted July 07, 2016 8:47 AM by wagman262

The latest from our contributing editor, Victor Rogers, who introduces us to non-destructive testing tools. Read his article, then share your experiences and insights into NDE.

Reply

Interested in this topic? By joining CR4 you can "subscribe" to
this discussion and receive notification when new comments are added.
Guru
United Kingdom - Member - Not a New Member Hobbies - Musician - New Member Hobbies - Fishing - New Member

Join Date: May 2006
Location: Reading, Berkshire, UK. Going under cover.
Posts: 9684
Good Answers: 468
#1

Re: Introducing Non-Destructive Testing Tools

07/07/2016 9:08 AM

"Two MPT variations exist: wet magnetic particle testing (WMPT) and dry magnetic particle testing (DMPT). Both initiate by applying magnetic current to the component. Material voids in the form of cracks or defects will interrupt current flow. Magnetism then disperses the particles to create a “flux leakage field” at the flaw location, visually providing its approximate size and shape."

Not sure what to make of that (my emphasis).

__________________
"Love justice, you who rule the world" - Dante Alighieri
Reply
Guru

Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1035
Good Answers: 40
#2
In reply to #1

Re: Introducing Non-Destructive Testing Tools

07/08/2016 10:44 AM

I second your sentiment... (not a very well researched-or-written piece).

The blurb regarding PT (penetrant testing) mentions only the fluorescent technique (without bothering to touch on the necessity for UV illumination, together WITH the exclusion of visible white light, for THAT technique)... not bothering to mention the visible dye penetrants that are available. At the same time, allusion is made that inspections cannot be performed on hot materials, while, in fact, there are "wax-crayon-type" penetrants that are made to be used on fresh welds.

And, "shame on the author", for suggesting that for VT, all that is needed is the "naked eye" (when that eye is totally and completely useless if the brain that it feeds is not thoroughly trained as to what-all it needs to "catch").

Likewise, for MT the allusion is suggested that surface preparation for inspection is minimal...(tsk-tsk).

John is spot-on , in that the "mechanisms-at-work" in MPT are very poorly delineated (even for a "nutshell" description). Wet and dry are NOT the "only two" variations that exist. Both a.c. and d.c. currents can be utilized, with the a.c. technique being best for detection of surface-breaking-only discontinuities (discontinuity being a key-NDT word not found in THIS article)... AND, a.c. magnetization affords the advantage that subsequent "demagnetization" is not necessary (when performed properly to begin with).

A strategically-placed link-or-two, OR even a proper graphic could have spoken MUCH more eloquently than the equivocation pertaining to the TOFD technique (of the ultrasonic Method)... likewise with the eddy current technologies.

[Regrettably, I could not bring myself to read-on any further....]

Reply
Reply to Blog Entry 2 comments

Previous in Blog: Gravity Slingshot: How One Grad Student's Insight Launched Interplanetary Exploration   Next in Blog: Combined Cycle Power Plants: Is Their Reign Assured?

Advertisement