25 replies to this topic

[cazyncymru]

I've just been asked by a customer whether we carry out "Big Ball" metal detection at the start up of production

 

Does anyone here do it (or heard of it!) and can give a few pointers?

 

 

Caz x

[fgjuadi]

Aw, I can't help you and I generally don't like to reply unless it's helpful, but google search doesn't indicate it's a standard practice and I've never heard of it

 

I just can't resist....

 

Maybe they want to make sure you are properly rocking out before you prepare their XTREME product.  Is this something with spices, blue food coloring,  and attitude?

 

Edited by magenta_majors, 06 November 2014 - 03:55 PM.

[Mike Green]

 

 

I just can't resist....

 

 

You went there.........( I knew you would-)....I thought about it...... (briefly)...... but decided against it ..............!

 

Mike

[RG3]

 XTREME

[Snookie]

How can one not look at a topic with "big ball" in it.  Never heard of it and afraid to ask.....  

Edited by Snookie, 06 November 2014 - 06:24 PM.

[cazyncymru]

It was a serious question!!!!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Snookie]

It was a serious question!!!!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Yes it is.      Unfortunately there is jest with the answers.  Having not heard of it before like Magenta I googled it and could not find anything either.  I am wondering if the question was poorly phrased and they are wondering if you use large standards (ball style) at the start of production. 

[RG3]

Magenta,

 

   I've reached out to my Application Engineer Inspection Systems from CEIA and he has never heard of this. Why not ask the customer to explain what this is?

[cazyncymru]

Was me that was asking not Magenta, and I shall ask my metal detector supplier / calibrator tomorrow . Will be back with the Big Ball answer!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RG3]

Was me that was asking not Magenta, and I shall ask my metal detector supplier / calibrator tomorrow . Will be back with the Big Ball answer!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sorry cazyncymru,

 

   I called Mettler Toledo too and the lady thought I was joushing her when I said "big ball" she just transferred me to the parts department and they didn't know either. Sorry. I tried. Maybe I can try with LOMA.

[Charles.C]

Dear Caz,

 

I remotely hypothesize that the customer could be referring to initial “calibration/validation” of the MD, ie  “balls” as in –

 

http://www.teststandard.com/

 

(But i have little doubt that you have considered this already )

 

Rgds / Charles

 

added much later - just realised I plagiarized Snookie's post, my eyes jumped it.

[cazyncymru]

Ha! after a bit of digging, and talking to the calibrator of our metal detectors (Francis @ Firstline technology; he's a fabulous bloke) I have shred some light.

 

Apparently this has been a M&S requirement in the past, as is now becoming fashionable amongst retailers to check for gross contamination, and to understand how the metal detector handles the contamination.

 

It entails passing a 20mm test piece (or a M10 , 20mm bolt) through the metal detector to see how it behaves / rejects the metal 

 

I shall report back with my findings

 

Caz x

[That Guy]

We do big ball tests. Tho I don't think its the same as what your customer was referring to. We manufacture gum balls, both large gum balls and small gumballs. Instead of using test wands we have metal samples inside of plastic balls the size of the product we run. I think the puns about big balls and small balls are endless, I've been working at a gumball manufacturer for over 3 years now and i still hear new puns every week. If a customer were to ask me this I would have giving a completely wrong answer.

[RG3]

I talked to CEIA it's a test that Tesco and M&S requires (in Europe) with a big ball of metal, this is due to the problems experienced in the past with Safeline coil saturation. Basically you run a large test piece through the aperture like normal. They want to make sure the large amount of metal won’t saturate the coil. The CEIA will show detection and reject like normal. CEIA has a certified 27mm test sample for this purpose.

[Snookie]

Interesting....very interesting. 

[cazyncymru]

See, I'm not going mad!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RG3]

Cazy,

 

Not going...already there

[fgjuadi]

 

 to understand how the metal detector handles the contamination.

 

It entails passing a 20mm test piece (or a M10 , 20mm bolt) through the metal detector to see how it behaves / rejects the metal 

 

 

Caz x

 

DENTAL PLAN

 

h Safeline coil saturation.

 

LISA NEEDS BRACES

 

Interesting....very interesting. 

Yes, very interesting indeed.   I have some suppliers to phone....

Edited by magenta_majors, 08 November 2014 - 01:53 AM.

[Ian R]

Hi

 

This is sometimes referred to as a 'Blinding Test' in addition to M&S,  Waitrose has also written this into their standard

 

The test requires a 20mm piece, you can get 20mm certified test pieces and you pass the test pack with this through the MD followed by a test pack with a standard test piece.

The MD should 'see' and reject both and not be 'blinded' by the large piece.

 

The story goes that at an audit the MD failed to detect a standard piece and when challenged the Technical Manager, thinking quickly and laterally, as if the normal potions for Technical Managers explained that the MD had been 'blinded' by a large metal piece and so failed to detect the small piece.

The story also goes on to say that the problem was actually a sensitivity issue and easily resolved.

 

Whether this is the case or not we are all having to introduce a 'blinding' test along with the 'memory' and 'continuous' tests for the MD operation.

 

regards

[Charles.C]

Hi

 

This is sometimes referred to as a 'Blinding Test' in addition to M&S,  Waitrose has also written this into their standard

 

The test requires a 20mm piece, you can get 20mm certified test pieces and you pass the test pack with this through the MD followed by a test pack with a standard test piece.

The MD should 'see' and reject both and not be 'blinded' by the large piece.

 

The story goes that at an audit the MD failed to detect a standard piece and when challenged the Technical Manager, thinking quickly and laterally, as if the normal potions for Technical Managers explained that the MD had been 'blinded' by a large metal piece and so failed to detect the small piece.

The story also goes on to say that the problem was actually a sensitivity issue and easily resolved.

 

Whether this is the case or not we are all having to introduce a 'blinding' test along with the 'memory' and 'continuous' tests for the MD operation.

 

regards

 

Dear All (& thks Ian),

 

So the options so far are (1) scientific, (2) mythological. A difficult choice indeed.

 

Rgds / Charles.C

[Snookie]

Dear All (& thks Ian),

 

So the options so far are (1) scientific, (2) mythological. A difficult choice indeed.

 

Rgds / Charles.C

 

eeeny, meanie, miney, mo........

[cazyncymru]

Well I did my scientific experiment and ran a 20 mm piece through which got reject, then I immediately ran the 2 mm test pieces through, and they too were rejected. Unadulterated product was passed through the detector between the test pieces and they all passed through fine. I shall write up, and then forget about it for a year, when I shall dispel the myth again during my annual validation!!! 

[Terry_Meki]

I know Francis from years ago Loma days....say Hi to him please :-)

 

So here is how this test came about - the electromagnetic field on the metal detector extends outside the aperture on both sides. A rule of thumb for metal free is 1 x the smallest aperture dimension. A large contaminant will interact with this field before the product even gets there - so the test is in part to ensure it can reject the correct pack (reject timing). So the worst possible position is in the leading edge of a pack where the metal detector might inadvertently reject the pack before, which hasn't yet reached the reject point - this depends on - pack spacing.

 

A lesser reason is that some older analogue (and digital) metal detectors take some time to settle down after a large contaminant passes through =. The head becomes saturated with the resultant signal and becomes ineffective for a short time. 

 

Hope this helps...

 

Terry

[Snookie]

I know Francis from years ago Loma days....say Hi to him please :-)

 

So here is how this test came about - the electromagnetic field on the metal detector extends outside the aperture on both sides. A rule of thumb for metal free is 1 x the smallest aperture dimension. A large contaminant will interact with this field before the product even gets there - so the test is in part to ensure it can reject the correct pack (reject timing). So the worst possible position is in the leading edge of a pack where the metal detector might inadvertently reject the pack before, which hasn't yet reached the reject point - this depends on - pack spacing.

 

A lesser reason is that some older analogue (and digital) metal detectors take some time to settle down after a large contaminant passes through =. The head becomes saturated with the resultant signal and becomes ineffective for a short time. 

 

Hope this helps...

 

Terry

 

 

Hi Terry,

 

  and thank you, this is very useful.

[glen_oxo]

Hi,

 

Just to add an addtional bit of information.

 

There have previously be instances where metal detectors from some manufacturers whilst able to pick up the standard test pieces have had issues with gross contamination.

 

They are tuned to the smaller signal levels and actually when a large piece is passed it strangely evaluates as OK.

 

Hence the introduction of the "big ball" test to check this is not the case as obviously this presents a significant risk.

 

I am from a Metal Detection / X-ray company and so have had some experience of this.

 

Hope this helps shed some light.

 

Glen.