Recently, a large industrial firm presented several hydraulic test system manufacturers with a challenge: develop a system to simulate a field installation for factory set-up and testing. Naturally everyone jumped at the chance for a line-up. Then the required system’s capabilities were outlined as follows:
It seems that several external influences are changing the way we think about Automated MRO Testing in today’s business models. The wave of challenges triggered by the recent global pandemic has led to lower throughput volumes, reduced testing staff, a loss of experienced senior operators, and a greater need for reduced costs. As a result, the way we look at the old manual processes in place for the past several years may be changing.
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.
Each month we receive multiple requests for “pressure cycling test stands”. The first question we ask of our customers is: “Are you looking for an impulse test stand or a pressure pulsation test stand”? This question is generally followed by a long pause and their response: “What’s the difference”? This then leads us to the next question: “Is the test closed-ended or open-ended?” Here comes the second long pause. While not intended to be a white paper or in-depth discussion, the goal of this article is to simply outline our definitions and how we internally separate and market the two systems within the Wineman Technology line of servo hydraulics products. Future articles will go into greater depths of the test parameters and specifications of each these two product lines.