DPCNews 037 - Black light-Effluent treatment in MT-Colour contrast without any developer

DPCNews

Written by Administrator

Saturday, 02 July 2011 12:50

July/August 2011

Our redesigned monthly DPCnewsletter now draws your attention on the papers published on this Website at the same time, or reminds you of some papers already published (all of them are still available!) on the same topics as those dealt with in the new papers.

The URL address of our Website is:
http://www.ressuage-magnetoscopie-penetranttesting-magnetictesting-dpc.info
We recommend you put it in your “Favorites” list.

Underneath, find the list of the new papers that you can read this month on our Website:

In the ‘‘Edito’’ section

‘‘Black light”
Quite often, people are reluctant to change or modify habits: so go human beings!
This paper is an example among many: about terminology.
This a major problem. Complying with the standardized terminology is of the utmost importance. Standardized terminology is often ignored or not taken into account. However, to be understood by everybody or to give clear explanations, the best way is to begin with using the exact terms that are defined in the terminology standards that are written exactly for that.
For the sake of clarity, everyone should do this way.

In the ‘‘News’’ section

Effluent treatment in MT
In a way parallel to what we wrote in the last issue about Penetrant Testing (PT), Magnetic Particle Testing (MT) critics claim that this method is a pollutant, and that it should be banned and replaced by Eddy current Testing or other NDT methods!
However, as we have stubbornly written, each method has its advantages and limitations: MT will not be wiped off, whatever some people’s view on the matter. Indeed, this paper shows that the effluent treatment in MT is perfectly handled and that, therefore, MT is not a polluting method.

In the ‘‘Oldies but goodies’’ section

Colour contrast penetrant without any developer
A subcontractor of a French car manufacturer called us, about a batch of 10,000 brake master cylinder of dubious quality. A PT inspection was required. Yes, but which one?
You will discover the incredible technique we have recommended, which is far away from what is taught in Training Centres. The suggested procedure goes against the fundamental principles of PT. But it worked very well!

In the ‘‘Mail inbox’’ section

A comment by a reader about the DPCNewsletetr 036 issued in June 2011.

As you may have noticed, this letter is dated July and August. The next issue will be published on August 22, and it will be again a monthly newsletter then.
Further, will you please accept our apologies for the inconvenience some readers met, receiving up to seven times the June issue of our newsletter. This was due to a bug in the previous router system. This problem has been solved. Thank you for your patience, and feel free to let us know of any other trouble.

We, Pierre CHEMIN and Patrick DUBOSC, welcome any comment, any idea. If you have some examples you would like to see discussed here, please give us all the useful indications. If you require confidentially, we would modify locations, names and some parameters to prevent any traceability.
Nevertheless, we are convinced that our site may be a kind of surge-valve: the topic is NOT to target this company, or that auditor; but it is always to make users think, to make them ask themselves, or others, the right questions.

We may also give advice, once again on a confidential basis if needed: please, feel free to ask questions, to document our data basis: about Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS), about environment, a chemical name you don't understand, a Penetrant process you have heard about, etc.
We have plenty of examples, some being out of all the specifications/standards, which led to the discontinuities detection, when the "current, normal, processes" prevented discontinuity finding.

Last Updated ( Saturday, 23 July 2011 19:29 )