A deceitful good idea!

The endless question for many Managers:

- Should we put on the market a new product/design when it is 80/90% technically developed, so as to be the first on the market and to overcome competitors while swiping the stakes?

Or

- Should we wait until it is 100% approved for marketing knowing the risk to be outstripped by competition and to lose the attached "innovative label"?

A dire dilemma for the Marketing Department and for the Research and Development (R and D) Department. And the market shall be ready for such a new product! Knowing the market is one of the most important information; that's why large companies use their future Marketing Managers as salespeople first. Field experience is irreplaceable.

R and D people are cautious and generally prefer to have the 100% ready-for-marketing version, while Marketing people are eager to have something new to offer.

Both Departments must work together so as to take no chances for success.

Sometimes the Marketing Department wants to go forward by itself ... and this is a kind of guarantee for failure!

As a demo let us talk about spray cans.

For decades the widest used propellant family was the chlorofluorohydrocarbons (CFC) due to their specific proprieties (non-flammable, chemically inert, low toxicity, easy to liquefy, cheap, etc.). Please refer to our paper titled ‘‘Propellents for PT/MT spray cans’’ published on our Website.

In the '70s, due to the nuclear industry's requirements about fluorine and chlorine content in PT materials, at least in France it became obvious that the CFC were no longer the right choice. Two of the main PT suppliers chose a mix of butane/propane (refer to the Table in the History of Penetrant Testing, by Pierre CHEMIN and Patrick DUBOSC).

Far later the Montreal Protocol was enacted and forbade use of ozone layer depleting (OLD) chemicals; CFC are a major OLD chemical family.

Thus some PT materials suppliers were in a hurry to replace CFC in their spray cans when they had not anticipated this situation. Market shares were in jeopardy!

Due to the replacement of the non-flammable CFC by highly flammable butane/propane some users were afraid. We explained that the ozone layer prevents all the Earth life from gene mutation which may lead to skin cancer in human beings, and that keeping it was good for us, we heard some comments summarised by: "Well we won't die from cancer, but we will burn and die!"

A renowned PT materials manufacturer thought he could get some advantage from this idea. Why not use the non-flammable carbon dioxide (CO2) as propellant?

He put his spray cans on the market along a massive ad campaign pointing out the "dangers of butane/propane propelled spray cans supplied by some competitors".

A disaster for him!!

It seems the Marketing Department did not let time enough for the R and D department to check CO2 compatibility with ANY kind of PT materials in spray cans.

Two main technical points were not checked.

CO2 is filled in the can as a COMPRESSED gas whereas CFC and butane/propane are used as LIQUEFIED gases.

- 1- A compressed gas is not dissolved in the PT materials. It is atop the liquid level, and when one wants more gas, just to be "sure" to empty the can, the only way to get more gas is to increase pressure ( the volume atop the liquid is given) within some limits. For CO2 pressures up to 700 kPa (7 bar) at 20°C (68°F) may be used.

On the contrary when using liquefied gases which are soluble in the materials, it is quite easy to have a huge quantity of propellant in the can.

Pressure from liquefied gases may be adjusted to the TECHNICAL specific needs (some products may need a higher pressure) by various respective contents of butane and propane: the more propane, the higher the pressure.

With compressed gases, the pressure will dramatically drop from the maximum pressure down to close to the atmospheric pressure when using the can (this will be explained in a further document). With liquefied gases the pressure will be the same from the very first to the ultimate use of the can (at a constant temperature).

- 2- Liquefied gases dissolved in the materials lead to an atomisation effect when going out of the spray can. This effect is ABSOLUTELY needed when propelling products which include a high "dry content", as for example non-aqueous wet developers (NAWD) or white contrast aid paints--just to talk about NDT products.

Compressed gases do not have this effect as they are not liquefied. This point will also be explained in a further DPCNewsletter.

So when inspectors went to use the NAWD spray cans their surprise was high --- and their disappointment almost as high!

Not to tell about the supplier's!!!

To go too far too fast is an expensive bet in a competitive market!

In the '60s a UK Company had a motto: "For every surface treatment problem, there is a product xxxxxx" (trademark we do not display).

Engineers and Commercial people in this Company had made a "translation": "With every surface treatment product xxxxxx (trademark we do not display), there is a problem".

This anecdote is there only to remind everyone that problems met in workshops may be due to the suppliers/manufacturers as well as to the users.

Our idea in these documents is NOT to target anyone, but on the contrary to bring to your knowledge some interesting cases which may prevent you to duplicate the same mistakes while performing Penetrant Testing (PT) or Magnetic Testing (MT).

All the ministories you will read are TRUE. We think they will be helpful:
• First as examples of specific technical --or non-technical-- requirements or peculiar problems.
• Second to let you see that the problems do not always come where you think they should come from.
• Third so that users feel free to ask for help from people (the experts) who may know more than they do.