French (Fr)English (United Kingdom)

DPC NEWS: a website dedicated to Penetrant Testing and Magnetic Testing



visits on site since April 2008

Log in


Receive HTML?


March / April / May 2016 : 1956 to Today, the Road from MIL-I-25135 to AMS-2644

Written by Dubosc
Monday, 04 April 2016 19:26

William E. Mooz
Met-L-Chek Company 
1639 Euclid Street
Santa Monica, CA 90404
310-450-1111, fax (310) 452-4046, e-mail This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

If there was one thing that could be said about the change from the original MIL-I-25135 to the present AMS-2644, it is that “We have come a long way, baby!” In 1956, when the first version of MIL-I-25135 was published, it is not a very far stretch of imagination to say that perhaps colored water could have qualified as a penetrant and be listed on the QPL. In fact, Loy Sockman, the founder of Met-L-Chek bought a gallon of an approved penetrant, cut it in half with kerosene, submitted it for qualification and it was approved! The writers of the specification simply did not have the knowledge or the data to design a better document. As an example, the specification required that “The penetrant shall contain dyes that fluoresce…”, and “The fluorescent brightness and contrast shall be equal or superior to that of the standard sample.” No tests were specified to evaluate these requirements. This paper will examine some of the devices and methods that were involved in the history of developing SAE-AMS 2644, the qualifying specification that is in use today.

Last Updated ( Tuesday, 05 April 2016 23:02 )

December 2015 / January / February 2016 : PT and MT chemicals packaging

Written by Dubosc
Tuesday, 24 November 2015 23:13

December 2015


Few problems are faced by users when processing Penetrant Testing (PT) and Magnetic Particle Testing (MT) materials packed in cans.

Last Updated ( Wednesday, 25 November 2015 08:19 )

September / October / November 2015 : Human factors

Written by Dubosc
Saturday, 12 September 2015 00:06

Dear Readers,

We are happy to publish on our Website a paper by Richard GASSET, NADCAP Supplier Voting Member of Lisi Aerospace, which was published in the June 2012 PRI-NADCAP Non-Destructive Newsletter issue that you may read using the following link:

This paper is reproduced with the kind permission of the author(s) and the Performance Review Institute. © Performance Review Institute.

It is known that 85 % of aircraft accidents have human causes. Could we imagine that 85 % of the defective parts that get the “Pass” tick after an NDT are accepted due to human errors? This paper fingers out very currently met situations…that, when added to each other, may make us think so!

We hope that this paper will be of some interest for you and bring you a top - quality information.

Patrick DUBOSC and Pierre CHEMIN

Last Updated ( Saturday, 12 September 2015 00:28 )

June/July/August 2015 : Excessive magnetic particles concentration

Written by Dubosc
Friday, 15 May 2015 08:39

June 2015
(updated in September 2015)

We got an interesting question, a very practical and “basic” one. Basic, yes, at first sight. In fact, not that basic at all!!!

The question came as: what is a good indicator that the magnetic particle concentration in a magnetic ink was excessive?

Last Updated ( Friday, 11 September 2015 23:45 )

March-May 2015 : Impurities in PT and MT materials: where do they really come from?

Written by Dubosc
Thursday, 19 February 2015 11:40

March 2015

Penetrant Testing and Magnetic Particle Testing materials are made of industrial-grade ingredients. There would be no technical advantage to using analytical-grade substances, the costs of which would be exorbitant and unjustified. Therefore, some impurities are to be found in the raw materials and in the finished products. However, are you sure that this is the sole source of impurities?

Last Updated ( Thursday, 19 February 2015 11:52 )
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next > End >>
Page 1 of 8