Talk:Magnetic particle inspection

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Metalworking Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metalworking, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Metalworking on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MetalworkingWikipedia:WikiProject MetalworkingTemplate:WikiProject MetalworkingMetalworking articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

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)[reply]

Completely redid the article and will continue to work on it adding references.

--Justin and more pictures also will work on some other articles relating to this material. —Preceding undated comment added 15:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC).

Removed External Link[edit]

--Justin 3/5/2010 I redid this page some time and left out external links to any of the Manufacturers of the MPI equipment and I think it should stay that way. There are 3 manufacturers in North/South America and 2 in Europe and dozen or so in China. It is not fair to other manufacturers unless all the companies are included in external links.

Merger proposal[edit]

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)[reply]

Justin 3/5/2012 The article Magnaflux should be merged into this article. the Magnaflux article should be deleted, point here or point to ITW who owns the company Magnaflux. Magnaflux(ing) the process was coined so the company (Magnaflux) trade name would be linked to the MPI process.

The process is called Magnetic Particle Inspection (MPI) the term Magnaflux the process is no longer used in technical articles or international standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.77.152.245 (talk) 22:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Text and/or other creative content from Magnaflux was copied or moved into Magnetic particle inspection with [permanent diff this edit]. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

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)[reply]

Demage Section[edit]

--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)[reply]

I have tried to clean up the grammar Druzhnik (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Waveform Section[edit]

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)[reply]

Rectifier[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]