Stop leakage — and lose weight

What can you compare leakage to? I believe an appropriate analogy to preventing leakage is losing weight. At one time or another, most of us have tried a variety of techniques to lose weight. Some were more successful than others. But unless you stuck with your commitment, the weight came back.
Granted, some people are lucky enough to not have to battle with their waistline or cholesterol count. Others just seem to have it in their nature to exercise regularly and eat right. I would compare this second group to a hydraulic or pneumatic system that has all of its connections brazed together: leakage usually isn't much of a problem.
On the other end of the weight-loss spectrum is people who know they should lose weight but do little about it. Their effort may amount to having a Diet Coke with their double cheeseburger. (Sounds familiar.) Compare this to technicians who deal with leaks by using a drip pan or absorbent sock to collect the fluid. They treat the symptoms, not the cause.
Preventing leakage starts with an understanding of its root causes. Understanding, of course, comes from education, and this is where the continuing commitment comes into play. Talk to your suppliers about training materials to help you in your battle against leakage. Note, however, that you won't simply attend a couple of classes, put what you learn into practice, and be done. And remember to share the information with others, especially newcomers.
Studying leakage will teach you that one of the main culprits is the use of pipe fittings. So start your mission by doing what so many other companies have done: ban the use of pipe fittings. Pipe fittings are cheap and readily available, but that low price is the same temptation as a free piece of French Silk pie is to a dieter.
Another technique is simply to specify the right fitting for an application at the start. Leaks often are caused by a joint using three or more fittings screwed together, when one or two fittings of the right configuration would have done the same job. Every time you eliminate a fitting from a system, you eliminate a potential leakage point. Better still, a manifold containing multiple valves can eliminate dozens of fittings, along with sections of hose and tubing.
There's a lot more you can do. One is to become familiar with standard and proprietary fittings designed to be leak-free. Another is to go to our website, www.hydraulicspneumatics.com, and type leakage into the search box at the right side of the home page. Or talk to your suppliers for their ideas on how to reduce leakage in your designs.
Finally, instead of that double cheeseburger, order a grilled chicken sandwich with your Diet Coke. I'll try to do the same.

What makes standardization so difficult?

As we become increasingly global in our everyday dealings, differences in units of measure become more obvious. The push for U. S. adoption of the metric system has been going on for generations. It will probably never happen — at least officially — because no administration will want to have to force multiple industries to bear the tremendous cost of converting to metric measurements. In fact, I think it would be more likely for an administration to introduce legislation declaring English as the official language of the U.S. — a move that would actually save money by eliminating the costs associated with producing government documents in two languages. Most industries would also benefit from such a move.

I was recently reminded of all this while traveling through New York and Massachusetts. In most states, mile markers on interstate highway exits are numbered according to the preceding mile marker, so it's easy to tell how far it is between exits using simple arithmetic. However, exit numbers on interstate highways in New York and Massachusetts do not coincide with mileage markers — they are simply numbered sequentially, with no regard for mile markers. So if you've just passed exit 15, you have no way of determining how far it is to exit 16 — it could be 5 miles or 55 miles.

Standardizing on exit numbers should be easy and relatively inexpensive — at least compared to switching to the metric system. So if it is so difficult to standardize on exit numbers, it must be wishful thinking to expect governmental endorsement of the metric system in our lifetime.

If we ever do adopt the metric system, I'm sure it will result from the accumulated voluntary actions of individual industries — much like the fluid power industry's adoption of so many useful standards. If so, it would happen the same way you'd eat an elephant — one bite at a time.

My connection to a serial killer

If you're like me, you sometimes enter your name into a search engine to see what, if anything, comes up.
I did this back in 2008, and my name popped up in a list of credits for a true-crime novel written a few years ago. After a few more clicks, I found a few details about the book — Into the Water, by Diane Fanning — and the name of the serial killer, Richard Marc Evonitz.
None of this rang a bell at first, but the credit line included my job title, editor of Hydraulics & Pneumatics. So I went to our website and entered Evonitz's name into our search menu. This produced a single hit, an article titled "Compressed air: it's what's for dinner."
The article was originally published in December 2001, but I remembered it right away because I don't do many articles on food processing. I pulled out a copy of the issue and and began reading the article, which I had edited. Then more came back to me. I remembered talking with this guy on the phone quite a bit. Potential authors of technical articles often leave out basic, but important details in their manuscripts. That was the case here, so I talked with Mr. Evonitz several times on the phone to obtain the info I felt was needed. I can still remember his voice -- deep and authoritative. He seemed to know the subject matter very well.
Of course, I had to pick up a copy of the book. I read through it, and then I realized why I was listed as a credit. I remembered getting a call some time after Evonitz's article had been published. This would've been back in 2002, when many people still used the phone as their first line of communication instead of e-mail. Anyway, I remember a lady asking me questions about an author I had worked with. I suppose I had assumed she was writing a technical book. Most of the people I deal with are interested in some form of technology, so I didn't think much of it.
I also remembered that a couple years later, I tried to reach Mr. Evontiz. Again, I don't often write about food processing, so because I had found a good source, I intended to go back to that source for some another article.
Now, I remember this next part because it was so odd. I called the phone number I had for Evonitz, and I ended up talking to the receptionist. When I told her I wanted to speak with Marc Evonitz, she quickly replied, "He's dead!" and hung up. Again, this was highly unusual.
Now it made sense. The receptionist must've been so short with me because the company kept getting prank calls because they had employed a serial killer. I was surprised that Ms. Fanning listed me in her bibliography. We had only had one phone conversation, but I must've confirmed that Evonitz carried himself in a professional manner, which she mentions throughout the book.
By the way, I enjoyed reading the book. However, the author opens by telling some of the events that happen at the conclusion of the story. I thought the book would've been much more enjoyable if she hadn't tipped her hand.

Hydraulics has been vindicated

This may not seem like the time to be writing about the Winter Olympics, but some news arrived that i thought I'd share.
Back in March, I wrote in my Editor's Page about how a hydraulics failure had been blamed for a malfunction during the opening ceremonies of the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver. You may recall that three arms were supposed to raise out of the floor, but only two did. Announcers — and an spokesperson for the Olympics — mentioned a malfunction of the hydraulic system as the cause.
I had written that something else probably cause the malfunction — possibly a switch or sensor. I had made several inquiries to find the actual cause of the malfunction, but to no avail.
Eventually, though, I did hear from John Saluk, P.E., from Edmunton, Ab. John wrote: "My first reaction to the missing arm was, 'There's some hydraulic guy sweating!!' Then I thought about it and said to my wife, 'I'll bet it's an electrical issue.' Later I heard a spokesman explain that some switch was either disconnected or not working. This didn't allow the top plate to slide back preventing the arm from raising."
So not only has hydraulics technology been vindicated, but I was in good company with my suggestion that the root cause of the failure was in the electrical control system. The problem is, millions of people heard hydraulics get blamed, but very few actually learned the real cause.

Hydraulics needs a better moustrap

When I first became a staff member of Hydraulics & Pneumatics, I was quickly indoctrinated on what the hot topics were at the time. One of the hottest topics then, 20 years ago, was the integration of electronics into hydraulics — which I came to know as electrohydraulics.

Since then, we have published hundreds of articles about electrohydraulics in this magazine. Of course, back then, electrohydraulics meant analog electronics. More recently, we’ve written about digital electrohydraulics. And even more recently, it’s been digital electrohydraulics in fieldbus systems — both in stationary and mobile equipment.

One thing hasn’t changed, though: the need for a universal linear displacement transducer (LDT) that can easily and inexpensively be integrated into most hydraulic cylinders.

Don’t get me wrong, several different designs of acceptable LDTs already exist, each with characteristics that suit them to specific types of applications. At the low end are resistive sensors, at the high end are magnetostrictive transducers, and in between are various other designs that have gained limited acceptance. The problem is, resistive sensors have physical limitations that will likely prevent them from ever gaining widespread use in hydraulic cylinders. Magnetostrictive transducers have become the favored technology for high-performance applications. Magnetostrictive transducers have been a real success story for electrohydraulics. They have allowed incorporating electrohydraulic cylinders into countless applications that would not have been possible otherwise. However, their relatively high cost prevents them from being used in most applications. Furthermore, the extensive machining required to accommodate in-cylinder installation only adds to their initial cost.

Therefore, a key to more widespread use of electrohydraulic cylinders is development of an LDT with the performance on par with magnetostrictive transducers but with a lower cost and that does not require extensive machining of the cylinder.

Eventually, though, someone will develop a low cost, high-performance LDT for use in hydraulic cylinders that can be installed in a drilled and tapped port on the cap end of the cylinder — making an LDT as easy to install as a pressure transducer. When they do, you can bet that the hydraulics world will beat a path to their door.

What are your sources of knowledge?

When I was raking leaves in my back yard awhile back, two of my next-door neighbors’ boys were playing in their own back yard. All of us were minding our own business, but sometimes the boys’ conversation became a bit loud, so I couldn’t help but notice. I don’t remember the exact context, but one of them became agitated and said something like, “Alright, already! Geez, you sound like a broken record!”

This amused me, because both of these boys were less than ten years old, so they probably had never even seen a record, much less heard a broken one. I concluded that one of their parents used this term from time to time, and they adopted the term after hearing it frequently.

This isn’t unusual, because most words we all use were just picked up from conversation. We were coached along the way, but no one actually taught us to talk. This is fine for informal conversation. If someone misuses a term, dire consequences generally don’t result. For example, I once heard a crtic say, “Her performance was so spellbinding, she literally held the audience in the palm of her hand.” Either the performer had a hand the size of Godzilla’s, or the audience consisted of ants. Of course, the critic meant figuratively, not literally, but I guess she thought literally sounded intelligent.

Perhaps I’m nit picking — figuratively, of course. However, after becoming a technical editor years ago, it was drilled into me (figuratively, of course) that we must write what we mean. Sure, some of the best lessons are learned though experience. But the best way to gain a thorough understanding of a subject is through professional training. After all, think about where you’d be today if all you knew about the birds and bees was what you learned from your buddies in grade school.

America's poor are in the right place

America’s poor people may not be in the most desirable economic situation, but if you are poor, America is the place to be. Why? Because 43% of America’s poor own their home — and almost half of these are single-family homes. More than 70% own a car or truck; nearly 80% have air conditioning; more than half have one or more color televisions; and 43% have satellite or cable TV.

These figures come from a report by Robert Rector, senior research fellow in Domestic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, Washington, DC. Rector’s report reveals that “most of America’s ‘poor’ live in material conditions that would be judged as comfortable or well-off just a few generations ago. For example, only 36% of Americans (all Americans, not just the poor) had air conditioning as recently as 1970. In contrast, more than three out of four of America’s poor enjoy air conditioning today.

But America’s poor have more than creature comforts. The average home owned by poor people has three bedrooms, one-and-a-half bathrooms, a garage, and a porch or patio. In fact, the average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, or other cities throughout Europe.

These comparisons are for average citizens in foreign countries, not the poor.

Another interesting statistic is that a typical poor household with children is supported by only 800 hr of annual adult employment — roughly 16 hr/week. However, if each of these households had an adult working 2000 hr/yr (40 hr/week), nearly ¾ of poor children would be lifted out of official poverty.

But don’t poor children often go to bed hungry? Not according to Rector. He reports that “The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children. . . Most children today are, in fact, super nourished and grow up to be, on average, 1 in. taller and 10 lb heavier than the soldiers who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.”

One statistic not mentioned in Rector’s report is the 99.7% of poor people in America whose lives have been improved by the many benefits of hydraulics and pneumatics technologies. Okay, I made that one up myself. But when you consider how much fluid power has done to improve the production of the food we eat, the homes we live in, and even the caskets we get buried in, it’s hard to ignore the impact hydraulics and pneumatics have on the civilized world.