Hello, thank you for your answer Walter!

I fully agree air separator only is a poor choice, but it's the way it is, and investment for sieve have been refused, every years.
I have never seen shape separator used for cut wire, only for cast shot, is that common in the US? If sieves are used, exploded shot with bad shapes should be eliminate by the sieves, isn'it?

We control over 8 sieves, but our rule is the sum of the last 3 ones, 80% of superior to 0,8mm. We don't have media bigger than the nominal (controled at reception) so we don't have an 1,4mm sieves as in AMS2430.

1. After performing the sieve test, are the unacceptable particles determined from the original representative sample or from a particular fraction separated during sieving? Sieve analysis determines particle-size distribution by weight, while particle-shape inspection is a separate evaluation performed on the appropriate sample or sieve fraction
Cut wire become rounder and rounder, then explode in bad shape, but only when small, this is clearly in the fraction we try to separate. Shape observation is not in the control routine

2. What original intensity value or values were established from the saturation curve?
0.23mm (0,0086inch) with almen C
0.95mm with almen A (0,037 inches) (out of range for A plate)



3. What intensity range is specified on the engineering drawing?
No intensity specified, only product lifetime smirk

4. When performing the production intensity verification, is the resulting arc height both:
* Within the engineering drawing’s specified intensity range; and
* Within ±0.0015 inch of the original intensity established from the saturation curve?
In production, arc height is controlled with A plate, and we are within the ±0.0015 inch

5. How long has it been since a complete saturation curve was performed using the current equipment configuration, process parameters, and media-size distribution?
1 year

BR

Last edited by Jean Riesling; 09/08/26 07:56 AM.