One of the squeezer QA Leakage Inspectors installed, started and commissioned by our staff. The unit visible here is assuring Food and Beverage Safety to the aseptic beverages of the Chinese gigantic Company Hui YuanYan Bian Corporation of China Huiyuan Juice Group Limited 中国汇源果汁集团有限公司, at Yanbian, Jilin Province, China.  This Electronic Inspector features sensors in-the-Filler and Closer Machines, precisely tracking one-by-one all bottles out feeding the precedent Bloc. It checks the possibility of leakage squeezing the PET bottles and measuring the fill level with X-ray bridges before and during the squeezing action. Also, a pressure sensor cooperates with the difference of filling height measurementss, to provide an additional independent index of Contamination associated to the bottle.  Visible in the centre of the image an additional FinalView Heuft Final Inspection unit.  Here equipped with 2 cameras and mirroring optoelectronic system, devoted to all-surface inspection of the Caps’ tamper evident ring, height and inclination






The Aseptic Filling and Closing process is vital to provide beverages of the best possible quality, no added preservatives at all.   But, ask yourself what asepticity to expect by a leaking bottlecap is not sealing filled in Aseptic conditions or whose the container ?   This, to remember that the Aseptic Process was born and assured exclusively in presence of metal seals applied between the bottle finish and the Cap.  


2002: an Oversight Revolution


Before 2002, aseptic bottling meant glass or plastic bottles closed with a metal seal.  In the case of the PET bottles, the metal seal was thermally applied to the bottle Finish.  The control for the correct sealing action of the the metal seal started end of the ’90 with electronic inspectors particularly expensive, complex and rarely deployed.  Around 2002, the actual worldwide leader of Food and Beverage inspection systems started to propose a new way to approach the Leakage inspection of bottled Aseptic Beverages, along two different ways:

  1. via metal-sealed bottle squeezing;
  2. via multi-cameras cap check.

In the meantime, some Vendors of plastic caps (e.g., Bericap®) announced to the World new patented technologies.   It’d have become first time possible to assure the sealing of bottles filled in aseptic conditions, without any metal seal.   This new kind of Caps implied final inspection capabilities which only multi-cameras (2, as a minimum) Final Inspection systems, born around 2001, may offer.   And, this is still not the end of the recent story of the Aseptic Beverage Safety.   



cchbc-english med-2 med


Coca-Cola® is the company which lead worldwide the present Aseptic Beverage revolution 

 




lsdh training med med

The first Electronic Inspector existing in the World featuring tens of independent sensors for quantities proportional to the Risk of Open or Contaminated Beverage, was quitely born only end of October 2009, in the French countryside at Laiterie de Saint Denis de L’Hotel® (LSDH) at Varenne, France.  Solutions allowing to maximise the Food and Beverage Safety levels of the products of an Aseptic Bloc. Solutions similar to those, born for the special case of final inspection multi-camera systems, we adapted and reapplied also to the case of squeezer™ Leakage Inspection systems. 

 Laiterie de Saint Denis de L’Hotel® is a high Quality dairy and juices producer.  France’s greatest dairy and also the site where our staff started to develop the in-the-Machine interfacing between a Full Bottle Inspector (e.g., their Heuft® squeezer™ Leakage Inspector) and an Aseptic Bloc where the Inspector has its own sensors. We commissioned these bottles of juice in October 2009 (  LSDH/2014) 



Aseptic filled beverages squeezing control

  A sensitive beverage, like the no-preservatives added juice in this figure, also if aseptically filled in perfect conditions, is destined to become a Septic Beverage if the bottle is not truly closed.  The image shows leaking control equipment in a famous Plant of one of the worldwide leader 

The image visible above in the start of this webpage, is just an example of the several Heuft™-built squeezer™ Leakage inspection system-integrated, redesigned, installed, commissioned and serviced worldwide by our staff.   Activities started May 2003 in the Coca-Cola™ Hellenic Bottling Company pilot projects at Moscow, Russia and Volos, Greece.  The figure above shows a combined approach to the solution of the Beverage Safety problem, including under a unified control, a squeezer™ and a FinalView™.  

Squeezer™ checks the combined probability of leakage of plastic packages, filled with non-foaming beverages.   In the case of foaming beverages, they exist other much simpler and cheaper methods. squeezer™ makes comparative fill level measurements before and during a compression of the bottle.  A belt drive exerts a controlled amount of pressure on the containers which are passing though freely and simultaneously they are measured the fill level and the pressure counterforce exercised by the plastic bottle.  During compression phase, if the bottle is leaking the inner gas is forced to leve from the headspace, implying an increased fill level.  On the opposite, fill level remains almost unchanged in the case of non-leaking bottles.  Even microscopically small leaks (due to invisible holes or cuts) can be detected and rejected, thanks to the fact that the rejection decision is a linear combination of the result of different measurements.  





Is it Safe that Bottle ?

organic-contaminations-of med

Measurements made on the base of different physical principles always provide the best answer to the vital question:

              …..is it safe that bottle ?

squeezer™ systems main inspections and functions are:

  • Leakage inspection,
  • Internal pressure of the container, 
  • Overfill and underfill,
  • Machine Vision closure inspection, 
  • Filler valve monitoring,
  • Closer head monitoring,
  • Filling analysis,
  • Serial fault detection and associated switch-off pulse,
  • Faulty containers’ rejection,
  • Inductive metal seal inspections.







“…to let Safety be factual …  they are necessary different simultaneous inspections, based on different physical principles, say mechanical and electromagnetic, and not mechanical or electromagnetic”



To adopt such a row of anti-contamination countermeasures could, at first sight, seems exaggerated but remember that:

    …no balance sheet has a line for Clostridium Botulinum or Listeria.


A few contaminated bottles can cost you millions in:

  • product withdrawal, 
  • product replacement,
  • business interruption,
  • heavy damages to your Company and brands reputation, 

say much more than loss of earnings.  And, most important, we return to invite you not trust it is really possible to detect with high probability a leaking bottle using a single physical principle. 



Multiple Inspections Approach is the Winner

pressure or counterforce se med hr

  Pressure Inspection sensor, measuring the mechanical counterforce exercised by each one plastic bottle passing at the end of its journey through the rubber belts of a Leakage Electronic Inspector squeezing bottles.  A “must-have” inspection for whatever Beverage Bottling Line producing sensitive beverages.  Electromagnetic inspections, namely the cameras, complements this one, and not the opposite

Single physical principle inspection is a synonimous of ample unexpected fluctuations in the detection ratio, as an example, adopting a single final inspection system, with a pair of cameras.  To let the phrase Food and Beverage Safety be factual, not only a slogan, they are necessary different simultaneous inspections, based on different physical principles, say mechanical and electromagnetic, not mechanical or electromagnetic.  


1.  Counterforce Inspection

At right side is visible a very important contribution to factual Food and beverage Safety: the plug infeeding the Pressure Inspection sensor.  Sensor measuring the (mechanical) counterforce exercised by each one plastic bottle passing at the end of its journey through the rubber belts of a squeezer electronic inspector in a Coca-Cola™  Aseptic Beverage Bottling Line.   


2.  Fill Level Difference and Correlation

The graphic below shows a way to sum (or, superimpose) by mean of a linear combination the results of two Leakage inspections acting on base of phyical principles completely different, in that same kind of squeezing inspector.   In the vertical y-axis the Pressure Inspection analog measurement and in the horizontal x-axis, superimposed the precise X-Rays Fill Level inspection measurement.   The rationale being the fact that if a plastic container is leaking and being squeezed, we’ll observe two distinct effects:

  1. low-counterforce exercised on the Pressure Inspection sensor;
  2. higher filling level.

The special case here examined additionally adopts aluminium foils to seal the bottles. As you imagine, a plastic leaking bottle shall surely show a less pronounced seal’s upper convexity, when mechanically squeezed.    




 Superposition by mean of a linear combination of the results of two independent Leakage inspections, acting on base of physical principles completely different







An ideal correlation existing between the occurrences of low-counterforce and higher filling level for each one of the bottles, should look like a single white colour dot in the graphic below.  A single dot, rather than the visible roughly circular dispersion.   


3.  Induction Inspection



A third kind of inspection looks for anomalously high induction levels, those expected by the nearly flat seal of a leaking bottle.  Two examples of them in the figure below, at right side:

leak check inductive med



  Inductive Seal Leakage inspection looks for anomalously high induction levels, expected by the nearly flat seal of a leaking bottle.  Nearly flat rather than convex. The figure shows a couple of consecutive and independent inspections. Two independent Binary Classifiers whose only common element is the Rejector.   Outcoming digitalised analog signal is depicted in red colour in the graphics at left side.  The graphics is showing the red colour traces associated to three consecutive metal seals. Blue coloured boxes are the inspection windows where the measurements are performed














The analog signal outcoming one of the Inductive sensors is represented above as a red colour curve.  The  signal for a correctly sealed bottle looks at least as tall as that.   But, it’ll look much lower than that visible in the graphic if the seal is open or the plastic bottle is leaking, lower than the programmed lower limit value “220”, and rejected.


4.  Popped-up Seals by Light barriers

Squeezer electronic inspectors' Shifting-Registers are made critical by the presence of the rubber belts conveying the bottles and exercising an unavoidable, however slight, braking effect on bottles’ infeed.  A bottle, leaking or not, could be lost by the Shifting-Register and a final additional inspection looks for popped-up seals.  Refer to the figure at right side.   The yellow coloured photocell is a common kind whose light is projected over a mirror: a barrier.   As seen from the of the electronic inspector’s Shifting-Register, this detector lies in a vantage point immediately before (~400 mm) the Rejector.   

Area exempt from belts’ braking and associated slidings. This extremely cheap inspection is electromagnetic and focused on seal's status, and not a Leakage inspection controlling the entire container.


Risk Assessment Basics

popped-up seal inspection w med hr

   Popped-Up Seals inspection. A cheap Omron® general purpose photocell contributing to reduce the occurrences of open aluminium seals, in a flow of bottles of juice, in a Coca-Cola™ Aseptic Filling Line.  They are part of a squeezer Leakage Inspector yet equipped with a couple of inductive closure inspections and Pressure inspection.  A hint to the relevance of redundancy in the Electronic Inspection

















Thus, we have five total systems independently checking container's Leakage:

  • 4  electromagnetic:
    1.  1  X-Ray Fill Level;
    2.  1  Inductive;
    3.  1  Inductive;
    4.  1  Light barrier;
  • 1  mechanic:
    1.  1  Counterforce.

Such a design profits of the implications of the Probability Multiplication Theorem.  Following it, the probability P1, 2, …, i, …, N-1, N  of joint occurrence of N events 1, 2, ..., i, …, N-1, N  say any collection of outcomes of an experiment:

  • whose respective probabilities are P1P2,…,  Pi…, PN-1PN
  • following normal (gaussian) distribution;
  • reciprocally independent;

is the product of their individual probabilities:


              P1, …, N    =    P1  *  P2  *…*   Pi   *…  PN-1  *  PN


Applying this theorem to our case, if P1P2P3P4, P5 are the probabilities that each one of the five inspections fails to recognize the defect on single container, the probability of a False Negative (a defect to the Market) shall be minimised.  As a practical example, imagine five independent inspections each one detecting a property with hit ratio 90 %, thus presenting a risk 10 % (= 0.1) to let it pass undetected a defect of the same equivalent size.  Their combined action reduces four orders of magnitudes (ten thousands of times) that dangerous eventuality originally 0.1 (10 %), to 0.00001 or:


                                                           0.001 %    


meaning that no more than one non-labelled bottle in a row of 100 000 non-labelled consecutive bottles out feeding by the Labeller Machine, shall not be detected defective as it really is by the Electronic Inspector, thus passing straight to the Market.   But, as you immediately observe, well before to mislabel 100 000 consecutive bottles, the Rejects Accumulation Table of the Electronic Inspector, should be fully occupied by rejects.  The sensor of the Conveyor Control Cabinet managing this part of the Beverage Bottling Line, set in the Rejects Accumulation Table should control an automatic stop of the Labeller Machine.   The limited accumulation space (typically in the range 100-300 standstill bottles) on the Reject Table and the existence of a sensor to detect that status and control Labeller stop, counter the frequentist definition of Probability silently assuming an infinite capability to accumulate rejected bottles.  Then, it is better to get out of that classic definition of Probability and modernise our idea of expectation of the future Events to the relatively modern Bayesian viewpoint.  The true Risk that a single non-labelled bottle pass to the Market, when consecutively inspected by five independent gaussian measurement systems, results still much lower than 0.001 %.     


Not all Electromagnetic Inspections are Equivalent




“Repetitive inspections by mean of inspection systems equivalent because based over the same physical principle, are the risky way to inspect whatever”









Repetitive inspections by mean of inspection systems equivalent because based over the same physical principle, are the risky way to inspect whatever.  Why?  Because also an ideal macro-Detector, like an electronic inspection equipment with several inspections: 

  • based over a (redundant) infinity of individual detectors,
  • each one of them using the same physical principle, 
  • having infinite time available to interact with the object,

should not be capable to fully describe the entire state space of a physical object.   Where the physical object we are referring to here is the apparently-only simple PET bottle filled with a liquid and closed with an aluminium seal or a plastic cap.  To understand the precedent statement it is necessary to recall a concept introduced elsewhere in these web pages: state space.  It is the widest thinkable space and that one where all objects, whatever their size or nature, have their full existence.  It includes all other spaces and, between these, the sample space relevant for the Industrial Measurements of the random variables:

  • Sample space may be thinked as one of the possible projections of the state space;
  • Random variable.  Imagine an object and and its physical properties like illumination, colour, induction, force, power, voltage, intensity of current, size, time, etc.  Of these physical properties the information we deduce is in the form of constantly floating numbers.  A random variable  X:  Ω -> E   is a measurable function from the set of all the possible outcomes Ω to some set E.  With reference to the figure below, all random variables are points in the sample space. 


root cause analysis sample  med hr-3

Random variables are projections in the sample spacestate space of objects’ properties having their full description in the state space. The function manifests the relation existing between these two spaces. On side shown in red and blue color two different functions. For example red could represent the transfer function of the Energy of a X-ray photon and blue the transfer function of its Polarisation. Distinct physical  properties of a single object, whose values appear like two random variables when measured by mean of two measurement devices (e.g., a X-ray phototransistor and a X-ray polarimeter) in their own sample spaces. Part of the individual points in the  are simultaneously related to several points in the State Space (  Dong/Hong Kong University/ 2010)



“At a first sight, to detect a seal's convexity or pop-up by mean of induction or by mean of the absorption of the photons emitted by the LED in a photocell, looks quite similar.   

But, it is not: after 1939 it had been recognised that the photons involved in all inductive phenomena are virtual photons.  

On the opposite, the photons emitted by the semiconductors in a common LED in a photo-barrier projector or by a X-Rays’ Generator in a Fill Level inspection, are real or actual photons”

In the particular case presently examined, two of the four electromagnetic inspections briefed above, the measurements are carried out not only by completely different detectors, rather they act also over objects completely different:  

  • filling level’s changes derived by the absorption of X-Rays in a liquid
  • induction related to seals’ convexity, 
  • seal’s eventually popping-up but not registered in an inductive way.   

We are now surfacing here a delicate and relatively modern subject of Physics, one underlying all electromagnetic measurements.  At a first sight, to detect a seal's convexity or pop-up by mean of induction or by mean of the absorption of the photons emitted by the LED (be it any of the technologies -IR, -UV, -visible, -polarised or non polarised) existing in a photocell, may look similar.  But, it is not: after 1939 it had been recognised that the photons involved in all inductive phenomena are virtual photons (further details here).   On the opposite, the photons emitted by the doped semiconductors’ junctions in a common LED in a photo-barrier projector or by a X-Rays’ Generator in a Fill Level inspection, are real or actual photons.  On practice, and with reference to the figure here above, to have four different electromagnetic inspections, two of them exchanging virtual and the other actual photons, means to embrace wider portions of the state space where the aseptically filled and sealed (or, capped) bottle has its full existence.  Wider than four electromagnetic measurements all of the same kind.  Then, in the reality, the four electromagnetic inspections are classified in two different kinds, adopting virtual or actual photons, what results in a true value-added to the Food and Beverage Safety.  In conclusion, the equipment described before is controlling the asepticity state of the containers, in five different sample spaces spanning a relatively wide portion of the container's state space


The Actual Widespread (Riskiest) Solution





On the opposite, what happens when are adopted just electromagnetic-only inspections of a single kind, is visible in the figure immediately below.  A couple of bottles filled in Aseptic ambient with a sensitive beverage.  A beverage made sensible by the fact that no preservatives were added.  The bottle at the right side is dangerously open, making unuseful the entire complex previous aseptic filling process.  The cap on the bottle below at right side is ~2.5 mm higher than the one at left side we are considering fiducial.   

closure and tamper evident  med








    A couple of bottles filled with tea in aseptic environment. A beverage made sensible by the fact that no preservatives were added.  The closure of the bottle at right side has two visible defects, which let it be open:

  1. is ~2.5 mm higher than the one at left side we are considering fiducial; 
  2. tamper evident ring, however not broken, is ~0.5 mm open.

Today's most common Beverage Safety strategy implies the cameras-only visual inspection approach.  Result?  It shall not be possible to detect as defective and reject the bottle at right side with a rejection ratio > 92 % when the associated false reject ratio is < 0.01 %.  To make a practical example: adopting the World’s best double camera inspection systems, it’d be necessary to sacrify > 0.5 % of the production (one bottle each two hundred) as falsely rejected containers.  Losses  < 1.0 % to guarantee that  > 99.9 % of the leaking bottles are rejected: less than one each one thousand undetected and passing to the Market.  Technical guarantees has different digits ?   The Writer of these notes can surely fulfill and keep the Electronic Inspector in those Technical Guarantees’ digits, along the 15 years of Expected Working Life (EWL).  But, Food and Beverage factories rarely have staff exclusively specialised for Electronic Inspectors.  Meaning that all Electronic Inspectors, exactly like the F1 race cars, run “hopefully set at their maximum performances” against the competing cars only during the Acceptance Test (freeing successive payments).  After that Test, top performances shall depend much more on the training and peculiar skills of the Bottler’s Maintenance staff, than on the brand of the Electronic Inspector. 


Imagine a Machine Vision system: 

  • by whatever Vendor, 
  • devoted to final inspection,
  • equipped with at least two cameras, 
  • operating standalone: no sensors in-the-Filler- and Closer-Machines.  

It shall not be possible to reject the bottle below at right side whose cap is malpositioned, with a rejection ratio over >92 % when the associated false reject ratio is <0.01 %.  Meaning 8 dangerous open bottles each 100, identically opened and consecutively present in the Inspector infeed, reaching people …not a Market !    Contaminated bottles terminating to final Customers, whose visual detection by mean of Operators is nearly impossible, because they are: 

  • in fast motion, where controlled front of illuminated white panels on single-lane Conveyors;
  • mixed between thousands of others correctly capped, where they are checked in slow motion on multi-lane Conveyors.

Key-concept is the false rejection ratio (False Positives %).  Detection ratio and false rejection ratio are amounts whose relation grossly resembles the known reciprocal ( x y  = constant).  

      Juice bottles immediately before to be packed.  Five of them are open: their cap visibly malpositioned or too high.  All times the product is part of the most sensitive categories, filled without added preservatives in an aseptic environment, containers' leakages have to be inspected by systems applying multiple-physical principles measurements.  And not only camera-based electromagnetic-only, like these


Aseptic Bloc 720x541@1x.  Aseptic Bloc. Imagine a Machine Vision system: 

by whatever Vendor, 
devoted to final inspection,
equipped with at least two cameras, 
operating standalone: no sensors in-the-Filler- and Closer-Machines.  
It shall not be possible to reject the bottle below at right side whose cap is malpositioned, with a rejection ratio over >92 % when the associated false reject ratio is <0.01 %.   Meaning 8 dangerous open bottles each 100, identically opened and consecutively present in the Inspector infeed, reaching people …not a Market !  

Contaminated bottles terminating to final Customers, whose visual detection by mean of Operators is nearly impossible, because they are: 

in fast motion, where controlled front of illuminated white panels on single-lane Conveyors;
mixed between thousands of others correctly capped, where they are checked in slow motion on multi-lane Conveyors.  Key-concept is the false rejection ratio (False Positives %).   Detection ratio and false rejection ratio are amounts whose relation grossly resembles the known reciprocal ( x y  = constant).   That <0.01 % are the inspection process' losses whoever should desire to have.   Those 99.99 % of detection ratios shown by some Vendors have full meaning only when multiplied by the conjugate amount, the false rejection ratio.  Then, to make a practical example: adopting the World’s best double camera inspection systems, it’d be necessary to sacrify <1.0 % of the production (one bottle each two hundred) as falsely rejected containers.    Losses  <1.0 % to guarantee that  >99.9 % of the leaking bottles are rejected: less than one each one thousand undetected and passing to the Market.  

Aseptic Bloc. Imagine a Machine Vision system: 

by whatever Vendor, 
devoted to final inspection,
equipped with at least two cameras, 
operating standalone: no sensors in-the-Filler- and Closer-Machines.  
It shall not be possible to reject the bottle below at right side whose cap is malpositioned, with a rejection ratio over >92 % when the associated false reject ratio is <0.01 %.   Meaning 8 dangerous open bottles each 100, identically opened and consecutively present in the Inspector infeed, reaching people …not a Market !  

Contaminated bottles terminating to final Customers, whose visual detection by mean of Operators is nearly impossible, because they are: 

in fast motion, where controlled front of illuminated white panels on single-lane Conveyors;
mixed between thousands of others correctly capped, where they are checked in slow motion on multi-lane Conveyors.
Vendors’ technical guarantees show different digits ?  

The Writer of these notes can surely fulfill and maintain the Electronic Inspector in those Technical Guarantees’ digits along the 15 years of Expected Working Life (EWL).  But, Food and Beverage Factories rarely have staff exclusively specialised and devoted to operate on the Electronic Inspectors.  Meaning that all Electronic Inspectors (exactly like the Formula1 race cars), run set at their maximum performances only during the Acceptance Test freeing successive payments.  And what about the 10-15 years following those payments ?    In brief: performances will depend much more on the training and peculiar skills of the Bottler’s Maintenance staff, than on the brand of the Electronic Inspector.

  An Aseptic Bloc including Filler and a Capper with electronic inspection capping heads, measuring each cap’s individual torque.  Also integrating sensors of an external Final inspection system

That <0.01 % are the inspection process' losses whoever should desire to have.  Then, to make a practical example: adopting the World’s best double camera inspection systems, it’d be necessary to sacrify <1.0 % of the production (one bottle each two hundred) as falsely rejected containers.  Losses  <1.0 % to guarantee that  >99.9 % of the leaking bottles are rejected: less than one each one thousand undetected and passing to the Market.  Vendors’ technical guarantees show different digits?   The Author of these notes can surely fulfill and maintain the Electronic Inspector in those Technical Guarantees’ digits along the 15 years of Expected Working Life (EWL).  But, rarely or never FMCG Food and Beverage factories have Maintenance Staff exclusively specialised and devoted to operate the Electronic Inspectors. Meaning that all Electronic Inspectors (exactly like the Formula1 race cars), run set at their maximum performances only during the Acceptance Test freeing successive payments.  And what about the 10-15 years following those payments?   In brief: performances will depend much more on the training and peculiar skills of the Bottler’s Maintenance staff, than on the brand of the Electronic Inspector.  Those 99.99 % of detection ratios shown by some Vendors have full meaning only when multiplied by the conjugate amount, the false rejection ratio.   

sensitive food and beverage


Example  

Correlated State Cap-Photoscanner














We saw with plenty of details elsewhere in this web site an example of determination of the status of capped bottle, by mean of a common Photoscanner.  Say a sensor where electromagnetic waves are exchanged with the container's top, where the Cap is expected to be.  To definetely perceive a correlated Cap-Photoscanner state, it is necessary:

  1. Time, to transform the previous state, in which all possible kinds of correlation of the Photoscanner coexist, in a following state in which the Photoscanner is “aware” to be correlated to a Cap, because having recorded eigenvalues for the eigenfunction ΦiS1 describing a Cap.  The correlation between the two systems Photoscanner and Cap) is progressively established during interaction and proportional to the natural logarithm ( ln t ) of the interaction time t.  An ideal correlation, corresponding to a maximised information of the Photoscanner about the Cap, can only be reached allowing an infinite time.  The fact we cannot wait for an infinite time causes the measurements’ fluctuations, a synonimous of the spectrum of the eigenvalues, resulting in the Electronic Inspector's false positives (false rejects).  Time, for what?   To transform the previous state, in which all possible kinds of correlation (superpositions) of the Photoscanner coexist, in a following state in which the Photoscanner is aware to be correlated to a Cap, because having recorded eigenvalues for the eigenfunction ΦiS1 describing a Cap.   

  When containers’ speed is > 2 m/s, the Time available to establish the correlation between Object and each Detector, following the kind of Detector and Object reduces itself to < 12 ms













  1. Interaction between the systems such that the information in the marginal distribution of the object inspected is never decreased.  Otherwise we could not have any more repeatability of the measurements.  As an example, this should be the case if we’d erroneously try to use a beam of high energy neutrons, rather than LED's low energy photons, to interact with the Cap.  The neutrons should modify the molecular structure of the Cap, modifying its eigenstates and then the eigenvalues we expected to derive by the measurement.

What precedes is the unique scientific background existing for the fact that several inspection systems exist and only their combination allows to reach results satisfactory in terms of defects' rejection ratio with minimum false positives.  Be wary of proposals for systems which could later leave only you and your Company with the liabilities implicit in all sensitive Food and Beverages. In the segment of the sensitive Food and Beverages, the best way to gain Market is not additional advertisement after a public debacle (a pitfall), rather active prevention of the debacle.  In the longer term, the multiple-inspections approaches adopted by e.g. Coca-Cola™ and Laiterie de Saint Denis de L’Hotel™, also if two times more expensive than single-inspection approaches, pays back in terms of peace of mind

  • no contaminations, 
  • no product withdrawals,
  • no negative advertisements in the media.

Links to other subpages:




This website has no affiliation with, endorsement, sponsorship, or support of Heuft Systemtechnik GmbH, MingJia Packaging Inspection Tech Co., Pressco Technology Inc., miho Inspektionsysteme GmbH, Krones AG, KHS GmbH, Bbull Technology, Industrial Dynamics Co., FT System srl, Cognex Co., ICS Inex Inspection Systems, Mettler-Toledo Inc., Logics & Controls srl, Symplex Vision Systems GmbH, Teledyne Dalsa Inc., Microscan Systems Inc., Andor Technology plc, Newton Research Labs Inc., Basler AG, Datalogic SpA, Sidel AG, Matrox Electronics Systems Ltd. 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
Webutation
                                                                                                                       © 2013-2015 Graphene.  All rights reserved                                                         DMCA.com Protection Status                    

                                     
                                              
TRUSTe Privacy Policy Privacy Policy
Site protected by 6Scan