Talk:Magnetic particle inspection

message: I removed:
The flaw acts in the same way as a discontinuity in the path of the magnetic fluctuation caused to flow in the specimen in such a direction it crosses the main plane of the defect at right -angles, causing the flux to bend around the defect in an alternative direction in the material which surrounds it. This deformation of the flux is not limited to the immediate locality of the defect but extends, in a deteriorating degree, for a considerable distance around it, and out through the surface into thefix. RJFJR 05:09, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
Can someone clarify the differences between this method and magnetic flux leakage ? 
 --Lyncas 17:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I suggest magnaflux be merged into magnetic particle inspection. The article on magnaflux is mostly a brief description of magnetic particle inspection. The part about magnaflux itself is a very short description of the company which specializes in several nondestructive testing techniques. I have already added this to the external links section of magnetic particle inspection. I don't know if there are suggestions for other specific parts of the magnaflux article which may qualify for merger? Druzhnik (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, like Xerox or Kleenex or Tampax, the name Magnaflux came along before "magnetic particle inspection" was a common term but them days is long gone now. Possibly their contribution to the world might be noted, at least ? 116.231.78.79 (talk) 12:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: --Justin 3/5/2012
Noticed the demag section had several technical errors,  I have fixed them.  I will need to come back and clean up my grammar latter.  Or some else can clean it up.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.77.152.245 (talk) 22:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tried to clean up the grammar Druzhnik (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demage Section 

message: Someone removed critical information.  I redid it from my original article and expanded on it a bit 
HWDC will penetrate deeper into a part than FWDC at any given part.   Read Carl Betz's book in the reference section.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.77.152.245 (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Waveform Section

message: Is the "full wave DC" signal really produced by full-wave rectifying an AC signal, as the "full wave rectifier" wikilink seems to imply, or is it a true (constant-voltage) direct current with no actual "wave" to speak of? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I've seen (Got trained for magnetic particle inspection, but wound up on a different job before I could accrue any log time), most systems take AC as a source, then a rectifier without capacitors is used to generate the waveform without any smoothing since the constantly-shifting current helps keep the particles moving until they get stuck inside the magnetic perturbations caused by any imperfections.  Indirect magnetizing "Yoke" testers that use permanent magnets or batteries probably exist for testing where there isn't power, but the fact that changing the waveform affects the maximum depth an imperfection of given size will capture particles lends AC-powered testers to be much more preferable since different applications are sensitive to different types of flaws. (Castings are more likely to have strength issues due to subsurface bubbles, while some scientific applications often prioritize having a flawless surface for experiments, to give examples) 170.178.234.233 (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rectifier