Top technology integrator shares key technology at the core of successful test systems.
Visit Wineman Technology in Hall 3, Booth E128 at the 2019 Paris Air Show
Visit Wineman Technology in booth #1019 at NIWeek 2019.
A few of our engineers feel that the most satisfying test stand that Wineman Technology builds is a Proof and Burst Pressure Test Stand. Afterall, who doesn’t like to blow things up!
Perhaps the best place to start this conversation is to revisit the difference between an Impulse Test System and a Pressure Pulsation Test System. Wineman Technology separates these two types of systems by utilizing the following definition:
The purpose this post to highlight some of the insights into the selection and capabilities of Bubble-Point Test Systems and is not intended to go into the testing physics, analysis of the test data, or the correlation / determination of element pore sizes behind the testing itself. An in-depth discussion for this expanded data can be found in standards such as the ARP901-B Aerospace Recommended Practice / Bubble-Point Test Method available from SAE International publications.
A quick Google search of this post’s title will result in plenty of information to digest and a wide range of comparisons (and opinions) based on who is providing them. Obviously, suppliers have a bias toward what they sell, and users based on what they know best from past experience. Someone in agricultural equipment may choose hydraulic linear actuators exclusively, and someone in robotics only electric ball-screws.
“I Need a Solution Yesterday”
When working with a systems integrator to provide a custom solution to fit your specific needs, the project process often begins with an in-depth investigation to examine the customer requirements. In order to thoroughly understand the application, this may involve several meetings between the client and integrator to hammer out details, ask more questions, and get additional clarification. Many times customers and/or service providers may want to speed through this process and get straight to the execution phase as soon as possible because of tight deadlines. It takes valuable time to sit through those planning and design discussions and produce multiple revisions of the specifications. Is all that really necessary?
This is a multi-part blog post. In this post I will be talking about the basics of LabVIEW and Continuous Integration using Jenkins, with future posts discussing the use of virtual machines for dynamic build environments, expanding the LabVIEW Command Line Interface, builds triggered by source code control, automated unit testing, and more advanced topics.
Guest post by Nate Holmes, Solutions Manager, Physical Test and Powertrain Systems at National Instruments
