InterTech unveils latest leak testing systems with LabVIEW software at Automotive Testing Expo India 2014, booth 3135.

Posted by:

InterTech Development Company provides vital innovation to help revive the automotive market in India. Failsafe testing and increased output makes up the soul of our products, with our latest technology on display at Automotive Testing Expo India 2014, booth 3135 between the 19th and 21st of March 2014 at Chennai, India. 

Automotive Expo 2014 Chennai India InterTech

Automotive Expo 2014 Chennai India InterTechautomotive expo chennai india intertech

Introducing Failsafe Testing and Increased Output

Failsafe testing is at the heart of InterTech products and systems. It is the key to reducing waste and recalls. Also, compared to traditional machines, InterTech systems usually double or triple production and testing output through patented technology. The test centric assembly processes pioneered and perfected by InterTech makes all this possible.

InterTech equipment with LabVIEW software

InterTech equipment with LabVIEW software

InterTech brings its latest technology and premier testing expertise to India to help reduce cost and increase production for one of the world’s largest automotive markets. If you are in Chennai this March, come see us at the Automotive Testing Expo 2014 (booth 3135).

Whatever your situation, from automotive to medical or industrial, visit the InterTech website to learn more about leak testing. For an immediate solution to your testing challenges, call us today: +91-99403-20718

0

Testing Proportional Valves for Brakes

Posted by:

The proportioning valve reduces the pressure to the rear brakes. Regardless of what type of brakes a car has, the rear brakes require less force than the front brakes.

The amount of brake force that can be applied to a wheel without locking it depends on the amount of weight on the wheel. More weight means more brake force can be applied.If you have ever slammed on your brakes, you know that an abrupt stop makes your car lean forward. The front gets lower and the back gets higher. This is because a lot of weight is transferred to the front of the car when you stop. Also, most cars have more weight over the front wheels to start with because that is where the engine is located.

If equal braking force were applied at all four wheels during a stop, the rear wheels would lock up before the front wheels. The proportioning valve only lets a certain portion of the pressure through to the rear wheels so that the front wheels apply more braking force. For example, if the proportioning valve were set to 70 percent and the brake pressure were 1,000 pounds per square inch (psi) for the front brakes, the rear brakes would get 700 psi.

To ensure that the Proportional Valves you manufacture are capable of handling pressures such as above consistently, test your parts with the InterTech patented Mass Flow technology based leak and functional testing systems. Our robust and efficient systems handle varied pressure ranges and test settings, customised completely to suit your production and testing requirements.

proportional valves for brakes testing solution

Testing solutions for proportional valves

A few features of the testing systems are;

  • Low pressure leak test
  • Differential valve shuttle test
  • High pressure leak test
  • Proportional valve output test
  • Bypass valve test
  • Input / output functional test
The InterTech functional test system automatically tests, gages, marks and sorts different proportional valves at 800 pph.

 

Follow the InterTech India blog for more solutions on leak and functional testing. For sales enquiries, you may contact us at;

Mobile: +91 994 032 0718

eMail: ajay@intertechdevelopment.com

Land phone: +91 44 4211 2525

Sales & Support: Chennai, India

 

Source: Howstuffworks.com / Intertechdevelopment.com

0

Functional Testing Solutions For Brake Calipers

Posted by:

The brakes are the most important safety feature of any vehicle, and the calipers are one of the most important components of the braking system. They apply the force necessary to slow and stop the vehicle. Producing quality calipers that stand the test of time, wear & tear and is essential to safe operation. If the calipers aren’t working, the car will just keep on going—even when one doesn’t want it to.

History

Disc brakes came on the commercial vehicle market in the 1950s. They represented an improvement over older drum brakes, which were prone to overheating and deteriorating performance over a short amount of time. Nearly all cars and trucks known have front-end disc brakes; some less expensive models still use drum brakes on the rear axle.

The standard brake caliper contains metal plates on both the outside and inside face of the rotor. The plates are faced with brake pads, which are the point of contact between the calipers and the rotors. When you depress the brake pedal, brake fluid flows through a master cylinder, which is linked to a piston housed within the calipers. The piston presses against the pads and forces them against the rotors. The action of friction slows down the rotor and the wheel.

Floating and Fixed

Floating calipers have their hydraulic pistons on the inboard side of the rotor; they move in and out as the brake pedal is depressed. Fixed calipers have their pistons set up on both sides of the rotor and apply pressure directly from both sides, allowing them smoother operation and more braking power; the floaters, however, are less tolerant of any defects or warping of the rotors.

Construction

Brake calipers can be one or two pieces and contain pistons or cylinders made of aluminum or steel. Two-piece designs are less expensive to manufacture, but have some disadvantages, which includes flex, less present in one-piece designs. Brake calipers hold the brake pads and have channels that accept the hydraulic brake fluid that activates the piston to push the brake pad against the rotor.

Materials

Most brake calipers consist of aluminum, as aluminum is very strong, but a light material that can handle the constant wear that exists in the braking system. Minimizing weight is crucial to the design of any vehicle and using forged or cast aluminum brake calipers helps accomplish this goal. Sometimes magnesium alloy is used, but it is expensive and often reserved for race cars. The brake rotors are made of a harder metal, as the friction against the rotor face during braking can bend or warp lighter metals.

The InterTech Solution for Testing Brake Calipers

Here’s one example of a turnkey system designed and built by InterTech Development Company in the USA. Do bear in mind that this technology is now available in India to best ensure that your products are tested with a robust and reliable system while ensuring that your parts meet the standard and quality requirements of your Customers.

brake-caliper-testing-system-test-stand

brake-caliper-testing-system-test-stand

 

Features

Components are leak tested to a 3 sccm. limit at 5 psig.

Piston retraction is gaged within a 0.010˝ window after venting down from 200 psig.

An InterTech M-1075 Mass Flow Leak Detector controls the leak test cycle.

Benefits

Reliability: System operates in a fail-safe mode with self-check features.

SPC Capabilities: Test results may be transmitted via RS232 interface or stored on disk.

Measurement Capabilities: Test R&R meets QS9000 requirements.

The Brake Caliper Functional Test Cell automatically tests and marks r.h. and l.h. calipers at a rate of 211 pph.

 

Follow the InterTech India blog for more solutions on leak and functional testing. For sales enquiries, you may contact us at;

Mobile: +91 994 032 0718

eMail: ajay@intertechdevelopment.com

Land phone: +91 44 4211 2525

Sales & Support: Chennai, India

 

 

 

Source: eHow.co.uk & eHow.com

InterTechdevelopment.com

 

0

Leak Testing Fuel Injector Components

Posted by:

A vehicle’s fuel injection system is responsible for injecting fuel into the engine cylinders, where the gas is burned to produce engine power. A leaky fuel injector, which is a common fuel injection system problem, can significantly compromise engine performance and produce a variety of symptoms.

As described in this article on eHow.com, small things like an erratic engine idle, a misfiring engine, reduced gas mileage and worst case, an excessive fuel leak onto the hot surfaces of the engine intake manifold or engine block causing the fuel to ignite and cause an engine fire. These problems can be arrested in the first instance with accredited testing systems.

Faulty fuel injector components not only are a threat to the end-user / consumer’s life, they also make terrible testimonials to your quality control. That we know isn’t the ideal situation for a component manufacturer, be it of any size.

InterTech’s leak testing solutions offer you unsurpassed excellence in testing solutions, both leak and functional. Here’s one such solution that has helped many manufacturers of fuel injector components to test and verify leaks in their manufactured components.

The Challenge

Fuel injection components often demand 100% leak testing to limits as low as .01 sccm with cycles as fast as 2.5 seconds, 10% R&R quality requirements, while also displaying significant part temperature variations.

Separate tests with different limits are typically needed in the same test cycle for body welds, seat leakage, and overall leakage. Integration of instrumentation software, fixturing and test circuit is essential, as is complete test documentation.

DR-109-Fuel-Injector-Components

Fuel Injector Test Fixture and Parts

Test Process and Solutions

InterTech’s downstream test process features a patented Micro-Flow mass-flow transducer to provide 10 times greater leak sensitivity than any other dry-air test method. A test part is enclosed within a test chamber and pressurized; leakage is measured as a flow increase into the test circuit outside the part, eliminating the need and time for pressure stabilization inside the part. The test circuit is precisely engineered for minimum volume, enabling the Micro-Flow sensor to almost instantaneously measure flows with a resolution of .0001 sccm.

Critical for fast small-leak testing, all fixtures and clamping devices are designed and built for absolute stability to prevent part movement during testing. Seal positioning mechanisms consistently address the test part squarely and firmly, stabilizing their closure forces quickly to shorten cycle times.

Seals are designed for high durability to run thousands of parts per day without replacement. With these unique features, Micro-Flow dry-air test systems deliver .01 sccm testing with less than 10% R&R.

Special Features

  • InterTech’s Patented Bias-Leak checking is especially important for fail-safe operation whenever testing to less than 1 sccm. It uses low-level airflow to confirm test-circuit integrity before each test cycle.
  • Temperature compensation sharpens test accuracy and repeatability by nullifying test part residual heat from welding, fabrication, washing or even operator handling. Custom algorithms based on the test part’s unique cooling characteristics supply appropriate corrective responses across the test cycle.
  • InterTech’s S-3085 networking/diagnostic software graphically visualizes for greater operator control the factors that can compromise a good baseline zero, trigger false rejects or otherwise disrupt accuracy and repeatability.

Follow the InterTech India blog for more solutions on leak and functional testing. For sales enquiries, you may contact us at;

Mobile: +91 994 032 0718

eMail: ajay@intertechdevelopment.com

Land phone: +91 44 4211 2525

 

0

InterTech M1075 – for unsurpassed leak testing speed and accuracy

Posted by:

An InterTech Design Report

Our diesel engine mass flow technology shortens test cycle time by finding leaks faster to enhance manufacturing efficiency and process – significantly. Download the full report in a PDF format at:DR129_R1

The Challenge

Develop a production line solution to detect and repair leaks prior to hot testing. Eliminate the possibility of leak-associated defects getting through the system. Deliver accurate results in seconds, while not wasting time and money on hot test repeats.

InterTech M1075 – for unsurpassed leak testing speed and accuracy - using Mass Flow, Pressure Decay & Differential Pressure Testing

InterTech M1075 – for unsurpassed leak testing speed and accuracy

The InterTech Solution

InterTech M1075 dry air tests both the water side and the oil side of an engine block at the same time, up to twice as fast as other available options.

The water side includes engine block passages, water pump, heater housing, thermostat housing, associated hoses and the coolant half of the lube-oil cooler, creating a cavity of about 12 liters. The oil side includes engine block passages plus, front and rear gear fly wall housings, crankshaft seals, oil pan, intake manifold and the oil half of the lube-oil cooler.

This creates a cavity of up to 180 liters depending on engine model. The InterTech testing system avoids problems of pressure fluctuation in the supply line by using isolated air reservoirs. Because it is independent of plant air supply, it provides a direct and stable measurement of leakage.

The InterTech system simultaneously pressurizes both cavities and the reservoirs: the oil cavity to 2.5 psi with a reject limit range of .2 lpm to1.4 lpm (user selectable); and the water cavity to 10 psi with a reject limit of 25 sccm.

Any leakage causes the leaking cavity to lose pressure and the InterTech mass flow transducer reads the flow rate.

 

For a customised quote for your leak testing problems, contact our Indian office in Chennai at 044 – 4211 2525 / +91 994 032 0718 / +91 98409 14544

You may also email our Sales Reps in India at ajay@intertechdevelopment.com / ram@intertechdevelopment.com

0

Leak Testing 101 – Part 4

Posted by:

In parts onetwo, and three of this “Leak Testing 101” series, we discussed three methods of dry-air leak testing—pressure decay, differential pressure decay, and mass-flow leak testing—including the pitfalls and hidden costs inherent in two-step pressure testing methods and the higher accuracy of single point measurement mass-flow leak testing techniques.

 Is mass-flow leak testing always the best leak testing method? Absolutely not. When accuracy and cycle time requirements are not that stringent, pressure decay testing or differential pressure decay testing can be a better application match because test instrumentation does not require as much specialization and related cost. At the other extreme, when very small leaks of less than 0.01 standard cubic centimeters per minute (sccm) must be detected, helium mass spectrometer leak testing methods may be required. It is the only reliable method when an application requires detecting leaks as small as 10–4 standard cubic centimeters per second (sccs) or less.

There are several different helium leak detection methods:

Sniffer—The test item is pressurized with helium and an operator moves a sniffer probe connected to the mass spectrometer to localize the leak. This method is slow, nonquantitative but has the advantage of localizing the leak.

Accumulation—The test item is placed in a chamber and charged with helium. Helium leaking from the part accumulates in the chamber and after a certain amount of time, a sniffer probe checks for the presence of helium, i.e., a leak. While apparently inexpensive, this method has a number of shortcomings: presence of tracer gas from prior tests, lack of adequate circulation in the chamber, and long test times due to background effects. As a result, it will be difficult to provide quantitative testing with this method.

Vacuum leak testing with helium—Figure 1 shows how helium mass spectrometer leak testing proceeds. The part is pressurized with helium and the chamber is evacuated down to less than 0.1 mbar absolute to eliminate background effects. The presence of helium leaking into the chamber is then detected by the mass spectrometer.

Helium Mass Spectrometry Method of Leak Testing

Figure 1: Test item is pressurized with helium within a test chamber. The chmber is evacuated, drawing helium out of the leaking test item. Mass spectromter then samples the vacuum chamber.

Equipment costs, maintenance costs, extra time required to evacuate helium from test fixturing in between test cycles, and ever rising helium costs makes this method the method of last resort. Typical applications include: heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) components; pace makers; aluminum wheels; and airbag components.

For these type applications where leaks of 10–4 sccs or less must be detected for product integrity or safety, helium has its well-deserved place in the repertoire of best-match leak test techniques to consider.

In the next part of this Leak Testing 101 series we will discuss miscellaneous other testing techniques including: hydrogen ultrasonic, bubble testing, and air under water.

If you would like specific questions on best practices for leak testing (and other testing topics) answered in future articles, please send me your questions at jhoffmann@intertechdevelopment.com.

 

Note:  The above article has been reproduced from an article written by the author for Quality Digest

 

0

Leak testing 101 – Part 3

Posted by:

In parts one and two of this ongoing primer on leak testing, we discussed pressure-decay testing and differential pressure-decay testing, respectively. Although those leak-testing methods remain the most widely used, it is often because they are assumed to be the least expensive leak-testing method.

To recap: Pressure-decay transducers for leak testing are the least expensive leak-testing sensor technology, often making pressure-decay methods the least expensive route for a given accuracy. However, pressure-decay methods are the slowest methods for leak detection.

In the mass-flow method (see figure 1), a part is pressurized along with a reference volume, and the amount of air that flows into the part to replace a leakage flow is measured directly in standard cubic centimeters per minute (sccm). A number of error proofing techniques are also available to guarantee test system reliability.The alternative to pressure-decay test methods are leak-testing systems using mass-flow sensors, which can provide fast and accurate testing over a much wider range of leak/volume ratios and testing conditions at about the same cost as differential pressure systems.

Mass Flow Method of Air Leak Testing

Figure 1: The key difference between this and the differential pressure method is that the mass-flow transducer reads the flow of air moving from the reference volume into the leak test item. The result is a direct reading of the leakage rate.

Mass-flow sensors are most often temperature-sensitive resistors that measure the temperature of incoming and outgoing flow as leakage flow is directed across a heated element, thereby transferring some heat to the flowing gas. If there is no leak, resistors are exposed to the same temperature. If there is an imbalance between resistors’ temperatures, a voltage is generated that is proportional to the mass flow. In this way there is a one-step direct measurement of the leakage rate.

InterTech’s mass-flow sensors have the capability to accurately detect and measure leaks as low as 0.01 sccm. This permits their use in applications that were previously believed to be beyond the capability of production leak detectors.

To this day, many mistakenly use much more expensive helium leak-testing methods because they do not appreciate that state-of-the-art mass-flow leak detectors can achieve required accuracies. Indeed, there are many antiquated mass-flow leak detectors that one can still find in the marketplace, identifiable by their use of mass-flow sensor technology that is slow, costly, and in many cases not suited for use in production leak testing. This has especially been true in applications involving low flows when leak detectors using transducers developed for the semiconductor industry are selected.

Modern mass-flow leak testing technology uses sensor designs that are not susceptible to clogging and are ideally suited for a wide range of industrial leak-testing applications. For example, InterTech Development Co.’s multi-channel touch screen mass-flow leak detectors achieve 0.01 sccm accuracy in leak measurements using patented mass-flow transducers that provide direct measurement of leakage with NIST traceable calibration.

Calibration and compensation for temperature and creepage effects are readily accomplished in systems using mass-flow detection, further extending their range of applications.

One can determine if the mass-flow leak sensing systems (e.g., leak detector, fixtures, software, systems integration) are state of the art and capable of achieving the 0.01 sccm standards by reviewing the following checklist:

• Is the mass-flow sensor designed for rapid cycle accurate leak testing?

• Is gauge repeatability and reproducibility (R&R) of the entire leak-test system in the industrial environment stipulated—not simply the gauge R&R of the leak detectors, which is only one component of overall performance?

• What temperature variations will the system handle?

• Does the mass-flow leak detector enhance performance with features such as: auto zero; test part temperature compensation; rapid and easy interchange of test sequences, providing ability to customize and recustomize leak testing for various products without any production delays; real-time display of all test stages and results, and data storage in buffer of test records; and tight integration of control software with mass-flow transducers and other system components?

 In summary, mass-flow sensors need to be specifically tailored to the leak testing requirements of a given application. Testing also requires automatic temperature compensation to ensure accuracy. When these requirements are met, mass-flow testing can detect leaks as small as 0.01 sccm. The larger the part volume, the better mass-flow test methods are when compared to pressure-decay leak testing methods.

However, there remain many critical leak-testing applications where mass-flow leak testing methods do not deliver the required sensitivity. In Part 4 of this series, we will discuss helium mass spectrometer leak testing that is required for many stringent leak-testing applications.

Note:  The above article has been reproduced from an article written by the author for Quality Digest

 

0

Leak testing 101 – Part 2

Posted by:

In part one of this series, we considered the pros and cons of pressure-decay testing. In part two, we’ll take a close look at a leak-testing method called “differential pressure decay.”

This method is similar to simple pressure-decay testing discussed in part one.A more accurate variant of the pressure-decay method, differential pressure testing involves pressurizing a reference volume along with a test part. The pressure differential between the non-leaking reference volume and the test item is then measured by a transducer over time, as shown in figure 1. This method requires measuring pressure at two points in time to obtain a pressure change reading. It is an indirect method of measuring leakage rate because the time and pressure data must be converted into leakage rate. This method allows you to use a higher-resolution pressure transducer.

Differential Pressure Decay Method of Leak Testing

Differential Pressure Decay

Figure 1: With valves 1 and 2 open, the test item and reference volume are pressurized and then isolated by closing valve 1. The reference volume is then isolated from the test item by closing valve 2. The transducer reads the pressure differential between the reference volume and test item twice over time.

A down side to this method is that the larger the volume, the smaller the change in pressure for a given leak rate, resulting in longer test times as test volume increases. All temperature effects are the same as for pressure decay.

Differential pressure-decay testing is widely used. Unfortunately, in many instances it is the default choice of manufacturing and quality engineers who don’t understand the true cost of this type of testing. They could eliminate these hidden costs by using mass-flow leak detectors, another dry air-leak testing method that will be discussed in part three.

Moreover, the indirect nature of the test process and the time needed to track pressure changes and take two measurements create inherently longer testing times. This means a greater probability of measurement error exists than for methods that require only one measurement. The probability of measurement error is directly related to the interval length between the two measurements. These factors are what lead many technicians to use mass-flow leak testing.

That said, it should be noted that for many applications at pressures in excess of 150 psig, differential pressure-decay leak testing remains the method of choice. Granted, test cycle times are slower than with single-measurement leak test methods, however, this drawback is outweighed by the lower costs for instrumentation. Basically, choosing between pressure decay or differential pressure-decay test methods involves a trade-off between cycle time and instrument cost.

In part three of “Leak Testing 101,” we will discuss the mass-flow leak testing method: how it works, and the pros and cons vis-à-vis helium and pressure-decay testing. I’ll explain how to implement this technique to get accurate gauge repeatability and reproducibility (R&R).

If you would like specific questions on best practices for leak testing (and other testing topics) answered in future articles, please send me your questions at jhoffmann@intertechdevelopment.com.

Note:  The above article has been reproduced from an article written by the author for Quality Digest
0

Leak testing 101 – Part 1

Posted by:

Not too long ago, when you wanted a product to be leak-proof, you simply put it under water, made sure it didn’t bubble, and thereby concluded there were no leaks. Such “bubble testing” takes time and depends on the operator’s ability, making it totally inappropriate for the modern production environment. Also, it doesn’t generate the quantitative measurements that are the lifeblood of quality assurance engineering.

Dry-air leak testing methods—some of which can detect leaks as small as 0.01 standard cubic centimeters per minute (sccm)—are the methods most commonly used today by a wide range of industries—from medical devices, to automotive, to appliances, and aerospace, among others. These dry air methods enable quality managers to define leaks quantitatively.

“No leaks allowed” standards are concepts of the past. There are a variety of dry air leak test methods and best-practice techniques for each type of method, which will enable compliance to ISO 9001 and comparable quality management standards to be achieved. Generally speaking, these dry air leak test methods include;

  • Pressure testing
  • Differential pressure-decay testing
  • Mass flow leak testing

In addition, tracer gas testing and especially helium mass spectrometer leak testing, are used in more demanding applications where leaks as small as 10-5 standard cubic centimeters per second (sccs) must be detected in a production environment. If one truly understands leak testing application requirements and best practice techniques for these various leak test methods, the selection of which type of testing to perform is a rather straightforward matter.

The first step in designing a leak testing solution is to correctly define what the leak limits are. Leak testing applications laboratories begin with an engineering analyses of a specific application to determine and quantify how much a product or component can leak. Often, correlation studies are performed to verify if it is possible to use dry-air test methods instead of hydraulic fluids. Sample parts are tested as part of an initial engineering analysis. These determine the production requirements and leak standards to be achieved so that quality engineering of test solutions can begin. The first step in this process is to select the leak testing method that is the best match to application requirements.

In this “Leak Testing 101” series we will discuss the various dry air leak testing methods and the issues and techniques that affect testing costs and gauge repeatability and reproducibility (GR&R).

First, let’s take a look at the pros and cons of pressure-decay testing.

The big plus of pressure-decay testing—or at least the thought behind it—is that the leak detectors for pressure-decay leak testing have the lowest upfront cost. It is probably for this reason that the method is still in use, although in many applications the real costs of pressure-decay testing are actually much higher than many realize.

In the pressure-decay method for leak testing (see figure 1), a part is pressurized, the test circuit is isolated, and the pressure drop associated with a leak is measured. A transducer reads the pressure change. Calculations then convert these time/pressure readings into a measure of leakage rate. The higher costs of pressure-decay testing stem from the difficulties inherent in the test methodology. Pressure-decay leak testing is relatively difficult because measurements are highly vulnerable to changes in testing conditions such as drafts or temperature and there are often difficulties in determining the volume of test parts and test circuits, which must be known in order to calculate results.

Pressure Decay Method of Dry Air Leak Testing

Pressure Decay Method

Also, pressure-decay leak testing requires two measurements of pressure with sufficient elapsed time between measurements. When speed of testing is an issue, this built-in delay makes the pressure-decay method less desirable. More important, the two measurements and the time lapse significantly increase the potential for measurement error. The amount of time you need to wait between measurements varies. Sometimes, long intervals between measurements can make for extreme accuracy, but these long wait times are typically not practical. The larger the part volume, the longer it takes to measure the pressure drop. Moreover, very large flows are also impractical with pressure decay, because when pressure drops very fast, it will probably not be measured accurately.

Thus, although pressure-decay leak testing instruments have a relatively low upfront cost, the extra time it takes to perform testing (if the results are reliable enough for the given application) is another expense that needs to be factored in to overall cost. It can still be the best leak test method for a specific application, but the trend lines are in the other direction. Most applications now require tighter GR&R even for very low leak rates, often with large volume parts, and with a desire to keep test cycle times to the bare minimum to cut overall testing costs.When you factor all these considerations in, it often leads one to use other leak test methods instead.

In the upcoming issues of this “Leak Testing 101” series I will discuss differential pressure-decay testing, mass-flow leak testing, temperature compensation issues, and many other topics. By the conclusion of Leak Testing 101, my goal is to bring all quality managers up to speed on the real factors that affect leak testing cycle times, costs, and reproducibility.

If you would like your specific questions on best practices for leak testing (and other testing topics) to be discussed in future articles, please leave your comments and suggestions in the Comments area below.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Jacques Hoffmann’s picture

Jacques Hoffmann

Jacques Hoffmann is founder and president of InterTech Development Co., a world leader in test-centric assembly specializing in automated leak and functional testing with mass flow, hydraulic, helium, or pressure decay technology (ISO-17025 accredited). InterTech Development Co.-engineered solutions are used by hundreds of quality management, product design teams, and manufacturers worldwide and the company’s worldwide support organization maintains offices in North America, Asia, and Europe.

Note:  The above article has been reproduced from an article written by the author for Quality Digest

0