Waterjet Technology – The Triangle Cut Comparison Test

By Dr. David A. Summers, Curators’ Professor at Missouri University of Science & Technology

KMT Waterjet Systems Weekly Waterjet Blog

KMT Waterjet Systems Weekly Waterjet Blog

This post is being written in Missouri, and while the old saying about “I’m from Missouri, you’re going to have to show me,” has a different origin than most folk recognize*, it is a saying that has served well over the years. We did some work once for the Navy, who were concerned that shooting high-pressure waterjets at pieces of explosive might set them off as we worked to remove the explosive from the casing. We ran tests under a wide range of conditions and said, in effect, “see it didn’t go off – it’s bound to be safe!” “No,” they replied, “we need to know what pressure causes it go off at, and then we can calculate the safety factor.” And so we built different devices that fired waterjets at pressure of up to 10 million psi, and at that pressure (and usually a fair bit below it) all the different explosives reacted. And it turned out that one of the pressures that had been tested earlier was not that far below the sensitivity pressure of one of the explosives.

That is, perhaps a little clumsily, a lead in to explain why simple answers such as “yes I can clean this,” or “yes I can cut that” often are not the best answers. One can throw a piece of steel, for example, on a cutting table and cut out a desired shape at a variety of pressures, abrasive feed rates (AFR) and cutting speeds. If the first attempt worked, then this might well be the set of cutting conditions that become part of the lore of the shop. After a while it becomes “but we’ve always done it that way,” and the fact that it could be done a lot faster with a cleaner cut, less abrasive use and at a lower cost is something that rarely gets revisited.

So how does one go about a simple set of tests to find those answers? For many years, we worked on cutting steel. Our tests were therefore designed around cutting steel samples because that gave us the most relevant information, but if your business mainly cuts aluminum, or titanium or some other material, then the test design can be modified for that reason.

The test that we use is called a “triangle” test because that is what we use. And because we did a lot of them, we bought several strips of 0.25-inch thick, 4-inch wide ASTM A108 steel so that we would have a consistent target. (Both quarter and three-eighths thick pieces have been used, depending on what was available). The dimensions aren’t that important, though the basic shape that we then cut the strips into has some advantage as I’ll explain. (It later turned out that we could have used samples only 3-inches wide, but customs die hard, and with higher pressures the original size continues to work).

Basic Triangle Shape for waterjet test cutting

Figure 1. Basic Triangle Shape for waterjet test cutting

The choice to make the sample 6-inches long is also somewhat arbitrary. We preferred to make a cutting run of about 3 minutes so that the system was relatively stable, and we had a good distance over which to make measurements, but if you have some scrap pieces that can give several triangular samples of roughly the same shape, then use those.

The sample is then placed in a holder, clamped to a strut in the cutting table and set so that the 6-inch length is uppermost and the triangle is pointing downwards.

The holder for the sample triangle

Figure 2. The holder for the sample triangle

The nozzle is placed so that it will cut from the sharp end of the triangle along the center of the 0.25-inch thickness towards the 4-inch end of the piece. The piece is set with the top of the sample at the level of the water in the cutting table. The piece is then cut – at the pressure, AFR and at a speed of 1.25 inches per minute with the cut stopped before it reaches the far end of the piece, though the test should run for at least a minute after the jet has stopped cutting all the way through the sample.

The piece is then removed from the cutting table and, for a simple comparison, the point at which the jet stopped cutting all the way through the triangle is noted.

Showing the point at which the jet stopped cutting through various samples as a function of the age of the nozzle

Figure 3. Showing the point at which the jet stopped cutting through various samples as a function of the age of the nozzle – all other cutting conditions were the same (a softer nozzle material was being tested which is why the lifetime was so short). The view of the samples is from the underside (A in Fig 1.)

An abrasive jet cuts into material in a couple of different ways – the initial smooth section where the primary contact occurs between the jet and the piece and the rougher lower section where the particles have hit and bounced once on the target, and now widen and roughen the cut. Since some work requires the quality of the first depth, we take the steel samples, and mill one side of the sample, along the lower edge of the cut until the mill reaches the depth of the cut, and then we cut off that flap of material so that the cut can be exposed. Note that the depth is measured to the top of the section where the depth varies.

Typical example of a steel triangle that has been cut and then sectioned to show the quality of the cut

Figure 4. Typical example of a steel triangle that has been cut and then sectioned to show the quality of the cut

I mentioned in an earlier article that we had compared different designs from competing manufacturers. Under exactly the same pressure, water flow and abrasive feed rates, the difference between the cutting results differed more greatly than had been expected.

Sectioned views of six samples cut by different nozzle designs, but at the same pressure, water flow, AFR and cutting speed

Figure 5. Sectioned views of six samples cut by different nozzle designs, but at the same pressure, water flow, AFR and cutting speed

There was sufficient difference that we went and bought second and third copies of different nozzles and tested them to make sure that the results were valid, and they were confirmed with those additional tests. Over the years as other manufacturers produced new designs, these were tested and added into the table – this was the result after the initial number had doubled. (The blue are results from the first nozzle series tests shown above).

Comparative depths of cut using the same pressure and AFR but twelve different commercially available nozzle designs

Figure 6. Comparative depths of cut using the same pressure and AFR but twelve different commercially available nozzle designs

There were a number of reasons for the different results, and I will explain some of those reasons as this series continues, but I will close with a simple example from one of the early comparisons that we made. We ran what is known as a factorial test. In other words the pressure was set at one of three levels and the AFR was set at one of three levels. If each test ran at one of the combination of pressures and AFR values and each combination was run once then the nine results can be shown in a table.

Depths of cut resulting from cutting at jet pressures of 30,000 to 50,000 psi and AFR of 0.6, 1.0 and 1.5 lb/min

Figure 7. Depths of cut resulting from cutting at jet pressures of 30,000 to 50,000 psi and AFR of 0.6, 1.0 and 1.5 lb/min

The results show that there is no benefit from increasing the AFR above 1 lb/minute (and later testing showed that the best AFR for that particular combination of abrasive type, and water orifice and nozzle diameters was 0.8 lb/minute).

Now most of my cutting audience will already know that value and may well be using it but remember that these tests were carried out over fifteen years ago, and at that time, the ability to save 20% or more of the abrasive cost with no loss in cutting ability was a significant result. Bear also in mind that it only took 9 tests (cutting time of around 30 minutes) to find that out.


* The reason that the “I’m from Missouri, you’ll have to show me,” story got started was that a number of miners migrated to Colorado from Missouri. When they reached the Rockies they found that, though the ways of mining were the same, the words that were used were different. (Each mining district has its own slang). Thus they asked to be shown what the Colorado miners meant, before they could understand what the words related to.

Waterjet Cutting – Introduction to testing waterjet nozzle performance

By Dr. David A. Summers, Curators’ Professor at Missouri University of Science & Technology

KMT Waterjet Systems Weekly Waterjet Blog

KMT Waterjet Systems Weekly Waterjet Blog

In the next few posts I will be writing about some of the tests that you can run to see how a nozzle is performing. But before getting into the details of the different tests, you should recognize that this is where a little homework will be required if you are to get the most benefit from the topic.

The world that encompasses waterjet use has grown beyond the simple categories by which we used to define it. New techniques make it possible to cut materials that used to be more difficult and expensive to produce, and as practical operational pressures have increased, so the scale, precision and economics of new opportunities have developed.

It is this range of applications that makes it impractical for me to give specific advice for every situation. So instead, by explaining how to make comparisons and what some benchmarks might be, I try to allow you to better understand your system, its capabilities and both the initial performance of nozzles. Hopefully, you’ll then be able to evaluate and decide when they may best be replaced.

One lesson I learned early was that nozzles from different companies behaved in different ways and that drawing conclusions on optimal performance, for example the selection for which pressure level and nozzle size was best, using one design would not necessarily hold with a competing design. Further, there were nozzles that began their life on our system doing very well relative to others, but which quickly declined in performance. Thus, as part of an evaluation of different designs, we would test the nozzle cutting performance against a standard requirement at fixed time intervals so that we would know when it was wearing out and should be replaced.

Change in the cutting depth of a jet stream at 50,000 psi when traversed over ASTM A108 steel

Figure 1. Change in the cutting depth of a jet stream at 50,000 psi when traversed over ASTM A108 steel as a function of the time that the nozzle had been in use.

Both the shape of the curve and the effective lifetimes of different competing nozzle designs varied quite significantly. And obviously, since most folk don’t spend a lot of their time cutting through more than an inch of steel, the operational lifetimes of nozzles will vary with the requirements for the particular job. Nevertheless, the relative ages at which nozzles can no longer reach that target can differ significantly.

Comparative effective nozzle life over which, operated at a pressure of 50,000 psi, a jet could cleanly cut a path through a 1.4 inch thick steel target at a traverse rate of 1.5 inches/minute.

Figure 2. Comparative effective nozzle life over which, operated at a pressure of 50,000 psi, a jet could cleanly cut a path through a 1.4 inch thick steel target at a traverse rate of 1.5 inches/minute.

As mentioned, the tests were carried out using nozzles from several manufacturers, and at the beginning of the test, the longest lasting nozzle was not necessarily the one that produced the fastest cut, but consistently over the interval and for about twice as long as the competition, it was able to achieve the goal.

Depths of cut in steel

Figure 3. Depths of cut in steel after (top) 1,000 minutes of nozzle use, and (bottom) after 1,500 minutes of nozzle use.

In the particular case in which we made the comparison, the major interest was in achieving a clean separation of the parts, and the edge quality was not as significant a factor. In many uses of this tool that edge quality will be important and would have given a different set of numbers (as Figure 3 would indicate) than the ones that were found for our application. As a result, the judgment that the nozzle is worn out will change to a different time, and the relative ranking of the different nozzle designs may also change.

The only way in which anyone can make a rational decision on which is the best nozzle for an application and how long it will be effective is by testing the nozzle against the stated requirement. When we began the test, we anticipated that the difference between nozzles from different manufacturers when fed with water at the same flow rate and with the same quantity and quality of abrasive would not differ that much. As Figure 2 shows, we were wrong in that idea.

There are a number of different impacts that a change in nozzle design (i.e. in most cases buying a competing design over that initially used) can bring to a cutting operation. However, these impacts are also governed by the pressure at which the work is being carried out, the amount of abrasive that is used, the relative nozzle diameters (if using a conventional abrasive waterjet system) and the speed at which the cut is made. But an initial assessment of relative merit should be carried out with equivalent parameters for the different designs.

In general, however, we ran tests at a number of pressures and with varying abrasive feed rates to ensure that the comparative evaluations were fair and consistent. As a result, we found that there were a number of different factors that came into play which are not always recognized and which could bias the results that we observed.

In the posts that follow this, I will first cover some of the different tests that can be used and then go on to explain some of the results and why they sometimes make it difficult to accept a simple comparison of results when, for example, the abrasive is not the same in both cases. To give a simple example of this, consider a conventional abrasive waterjet nozzle that is operated at increasing pressure.

Increasing the pressure will improve the cutting speed and/or the cut quality, as a general rule. It will reduce the amount of abrasive that is needed but this is where the “yes, but’s . . . .” start to appear. As the pressure of the jet increases, so the amount of abrasive that is broken within the mixing chamber will also increase so that the average size of the particle coming out of the nozzle will become smaller. The amount of this size reduction is a function of the quality of the abrasive that is being used and a function of the initial size of that abrasive.

Within a certain size range, that reduction in the particle size does not significantly change the cutting performance, but if the mix contains too many small particles, particularly if the distance to the work piece is also significant, then the cutting performance can be reduced because of the particle break-up. Different nozzle designs produce different amounts of very fine material even from the same feed rate of the same abrasive into the nozzle. When the initial feed rate of the abrasive or a different abrasive is used, estimating which design and set of operating pressures is best becomes more difficult as an abstract estimation.

This is why, in the posts that follow, the comparisons are made are based on actual measurements and why I recommend that everyone test their system using more than one design/set of operating parameters so that they can be confident that the combination that they are using will provide the best combination for the job to be done.

Waterjet Technology – Hoses and High Pressure tubing

By Dr. David A. Summers, Curators’ Professor at Missouri University of Science & Technology

KMT Waterjet Systems Weekly Waterjet Blog

KMT Waterjet Systems Weekly Waterjet Blog

One of the first decisions one makes in connecting a waterjet pump to a nozzle is to select the size of the high-pressure pipeline that will take the water from the pump to the cutting nozzle. This choice has become a little more involved as ultra-high pressure hoses have come on the market since they can be used at pressures that once could only be served with high-pressure tubing. However, at higher pressures, the flexibility of hoses becomes reduced – both because of that pressure and also because of the layers of protection that are built into the hose structure.

Much of the original plumbing in the earlier days of the technology used 3/16th inch inner diameter, 9/16th inch outer diameter steel tubing. One reason for this was that, at this diameter, the tubing could be quite easily bent and curved into spiral shapes. And that, in turn, made it possible to provide some flexibility into an assembly that would otherwise have been quite rigid.

Early cutting nozzle with spiral coils in the high-pressure waterjet feed line to the nozzle

Figure 1. Early cutting nozzle with spiral coils in the high-pressure waterjet feed line to the nozzle

When cutting nozzles were first introduced into industry, they were fixed in place because of the rigid connection to the pump. Therefore, the target material had to be fed underneath the nozzle since it was easier to move that than to add flexibility to the water supply line.

Early waterjet slitting operation

Figure 2. Early waterjet slitting operation (courtesy of KMT Waterjet Systems)

However, because feed stock can vary in geometry, some flexibility in the positioning of the cutting nozzle above the cutting table would allow the jet to do more than cut straight lines. A way had to be found to allow the nozzle to move, and this led into the development of a series of spiral turns that high-pressure tubing can be turned through, as it brings the water to the nozzle (See Figure 1). That, in turn, allowed a slight nozzle movement. By adding this flexibility to the nozzle, a very significant marriage could then take place between robotics and waterjet cutting.

The force required to hold a nozzle in a fixed location becomes quite small as the flow rate reduces and the pressure increases. (at 40,0000 psi and a flow rate of 1 gpm the thrust is about 10 lb). The first assembly robots that came into use were quite weak, and as their arms extended, the amount of thrust they could hold without wobbling was small, but critically more than 10 lb. And this gave an initial impetus to adding jet cutting heads to industrial robots of both the pedestal and gantry type to allow rapid cutting of shapes on a target material, such as a car carpet, where the ports for the various pedals and sticks need to be removed.

But this marriage between the robot and the jet required that the jet support pipeline be flexible, so that it could allow the nozzle to be moved over the target and positioned to cut, for example, the holes for retaining bolts without damaging the intervening material.

The pipe had to be able to turn and to extend and retract, within a reasonable range, so that it could carry out the needed tasks. Bending the pipe into a series of loops produced that flexibility.

A single full circular bend in the pipe will acquire sufficient flexibility that the end of the pipe (and thus the nozzle) can be moved over an arc of about 9 degrees.

Coils on a pedestal-mounted robot

Figure 3. Coils on a pedestal-mounted robot, allowing 3-dimensional positioning of the cutting nozzle

A large number of coils were required since the tubing has only a very limited amount of flexibility in every turn. For example, if one wanted to stretch the connection by lowering the nozzle, then the several coils would act in the same way that the steel in a spring would as it extended. The movement can perhaps be illustrated with the following representation of a set of spirals, with metric dimensions.

Schematic of a series of coils

Figure 4. Schematic of a series of coils, arranged to allow the nozzle to feed laterally

Each spiral will also allow a slight angular adjustment, and these add up as more spirals are added to the passage.

Angular movement allowed per spiral

Figure 5. Angular movement allowed per spiral. This should not exceed 9 degrees per turn

While, in many modern assemblies, this may seem to be a quaint way of solving the problem, back when these systems were first put together, it was very had to find high-pressure swivels that would operate at pressure for any length of time. In those days, we had one source that provided a swivel that would run for many hours provided that all the external forces could be removed from the swivel itself. But the moment an out-of-alignment force hit the swivel it was ruined. In another application, we had tested every swivel we could find that would fit down a six-inch diameter hole and had found one that would run for ten minutes. To finish our field demonstration, where we had to drill out 50-ft horizontally from a vertical access well, we had to continuously pour water onto the joint to keep it cool, and the manufacturer stood by with a pocket full of bearing washers that we had to replace every time one started to gall.

But that was over thirty years ago. Now the connections from the pump to the nozzle can flow through ultra-high-pressure hose with a flexibility that we could barely imagine. And ultra-high pressure swivels will run for well over a hundred hours each without showing any loss in performance. It was, however, a gradual transition from one to the other.

Ultra-high-pressure feed to a nozzle, using coils and swivels

Figure 6. Ultra-high-pressure feed to a nozzle, using coils and swivels

There are a couple of additional cautions that should be born in mind when laying these lines out. While a hose is more flexible, it is liable to pulsing and moving slightly on a bearing surface under pump cycling. In most places, this is not a problem, but if the hose is confined and bent, then it may cause the hose to rub against a nearby surface. Over time, this can generate heat and can even wear through the various hose layers.

Worn hose and the scuff mark where it was rubbing on a plate

Figure 7. Worn hose and the scuff mark where it was rubbing on a plate.

There are other issues with hoses: smaller high-pressure lines can kink when used in cleaning operations and this is a seriously BAD thing to happen. I will discuss that in a future article. Similarly, one must consider the weight of the hose, particularly in hand-held operations, where it is important to address hose handling as part of the procedure, but again this will be discussed later.

Waterjet Pumps – Pump Pressure is not Cutting Pressure

By Dr. David A. Summers, Curators’ Professor at Missouri University of Science & Technology

KMT Waterjet Systems Weekly Waterjet Blog

KMT Waterjet Systems Weekly Waterjet Blog

When I began this series, I pointed out that whenever a waterjet is going to be used both the target material and the waterjet delivery system have to be considered if the work is to be done well.

In the last four posts I have tried to emphasize the role of cracks and flaws in the way in which water penetrates into and removes material. It is easier to see this with large-scale operations, such as in the removal of large volumes of soil, but it equally holds true in the abrasive cutting of glass. Now in this next series of KMT Waterjet Blogs, the focus is going to swing back to the ways in which high-pressure waterjets are developed, particularly in the different choices of equipment that can be used.

Because this KMT Waterjet Blog Series is meant to help folk understand how systems work and through that how to improve production and quality, it will tend to shy away from putting a lot of formulae into the presentations. There is a reason that I, an academic, don’t like having students learn equations by rote. It is that it becomes quite possible to misremember them. If you are used to looking them up (particularly true in today’s computer world where formulae can easily be used to generate tables) then you are less likely to mis-remember the exact relationships and to make a possible critical mistake.

But, as I showed here, when the tables of jet flow, horsepower and thrust were generated, there are a few critical equations that need to be born in mind. And the one that underlies the economics of many operations is tied up in the size of the power that is available to do the work. The basic power equation itself is relatively straightforward:

Relationship between hydraulic horsepower, pressure and flow

Figure 1. Relationship between hydraulic horsepower, pressure and flow.

But the calculation gives different values, depending on where the calculation is made in a circuit. To demonstrate this, let us use a very simple drawing of a flow circuit.

Components of a simple flow circuit

Figure 2. The components of a simple flow circuit. Water is drawn from the water tank, through the pump and delivered down a hose to a high-pressure lance, where the water is fed, through a nozzle and aimed at the target, where it does the work.

In the course of this small set of posts the different components that make up this circuit are going to be discussed in turn. But at the end of the first set, I mentioned that in an early comparison of the relative cleaning performance of 10,000 psi waterjets of nominally equal power, and flow (10 gpm IIRC) there was a dramatic difference in the cleaning efficiency, as the Navy reported at the time.

Relative cleaning efficiency in areal percentage cleaned of five competing systems in cleaning heat exchanger tubes in Navy boilers

Figure 3. Relative cleaning efficiency in areal percentage cleaned of five competing systems in cleaning heat exchanger tubes in Navy boilers. (Tursi, T.P. Jr., & Deleece, R.J. Jr, (1975) Development of Very High Pressure Waterjet for Cleaning Naval Boiler Tubes, Naval Ship Engineering Center, Philadelphia Division, Philadelphia, PA., 1975, pp. 18.)

Why such a difference? Consider how the power changes from the time that it first enters the pump motor, and then is converted into power along the line to the target. The numbers that I am going to use may seem extreme, but they actually mirror an early experimental set-up in our laboratory, before we learned better.

A water flow of 10 gallons a minute (gpm) at a pressure of 10,000 pounds per square inch (psi) pressure will contain – using the above equation;

10,000 x 10/1714 = 58.34 horsepower (hp)

But that is the power in the water. Pumps are not 100% efficient, and so there has to be some additional power put into the pump to allow for the relative efficiency of the pump itself. For the sake of illustration let us say that the pump converts the energy at 90% efficiency. Thus the power that is supplied to the drive shaft of the pump will need to be:

58.34/0.9 = 64.8 hp

But that is still not the power that we have to supply, since that power – usually – comes from an electric power cord that feeds into a motor, which then, in turn, drives the pump shaft. That motor itself is also not 100% efficient. Let us, for the sake of discussion, say that it is 92.6% efficient. Then the electrical power supplied will be:

64.8/0.926 = 70 hp

Now, as the calculation progresses, remember that this is the power that is being paid for. And so, in the first part of the flow, the power is transformed from electric power to water power, but at the pump.

The change in power from that input to the motor to that coming out of the pump

Figure 4. The change in power from that input to the motor to that coming out of the pump.

The water coming out of the pump then flows through either a length of pipe, or high-pressure tubing until it comes to the tool that holds the nozzle. There are a number of different factors that change the flow conditions to the point that it leaves the nozzle. The most critical, and often overlooked, is the size of the hose/tubing that carries the water. Particularly as pumps get larger and more powerful and the flow rates increase, it is important to ensure that the passage for the water is large enough so that it does not require too much pressure to overcome the friction acting against that flow. I have, myself, put an additional 10-ft length of tubing on a drilling lance, and seen the cutting pressure coming out the end fall from that which drilled a rock at 12 ft/minute to where it could not drill at all. (The pressure drop was around 200 psi per foot). I mentioned in that earlier post that a competitor, running at a pump pressure of 45,000 psi was losing 35,000 psi of that pressure just to overcome friction in pushing the water down through a tube that was too narrow. As a result the water coming out of the nozzle had barely enough pressure (10,000 psi) to cut into the rock.

At the same time, very few people pay a lot of attention to how their nozzle fits on the end of the feed line, or how well it is made. Think of this – you have just spent $200,000 on a system, and yet, because the nozzle is a disposable part, you look around for the cheapest source you can get. You don’t size it for a good fluid fit, nor do you check how well it is machined. And yet the entire performance of your system is controlled by that small item. The difference between a very good nozzle and a standard nozzle can give as much as a factor of 10 improvement on performance – but who checks. The one you use saved you $15 relative to what you would have paid if you had bought the competing product, what a bargain – right?

There are different ways in which pumps operate and produce the high-pressure flow. With a fixed size of orifice in the nozzle and with a given pressure drop along the feed line, the pressure at the nozzle will be correspondingly reduced. So that if, for example, we use a 0.063 inch diameter nozzle then the chart you developed after generating the table will show that this will carry a flow of 9.84 gpm at 10,000 psi. But let us suppose that the hose loses 20 psi per foot of length, and that the hose is 200 ft long, then the pressure drop along the hose will be 20 x 200 = 4,000 psi.

Thus the pressure of the water coming out of the hose will be only 6,000 psi. And at an orifice of 0.063 inches, the flow through the orifice will now only be 7.62 gpm. (The way in which the pressure is controlled is assumed to be through bypassing extra flow back to the reservoir through a bleed-off circuit).

Now the pump is still putting out 10 gpm at 10,000 psi, but now the flow out of the nozzle is only 7.62 gpm at 6,000 psi. The power in this jet is (7.62 x 6,000/1714) only 26.7 hp. This is only 38% of the energy going into the pump.

The power losses to the nozzle

Figure 5. The power losses to the nozzle.

Unfortunately this is not the end of the losses. Particularly in cleaning operations there is a tendency for the operator to hold the nozzle at a comfortable distance from the target, so that the effect can be seen. But, as I will show in later posts, the jet pressure can fall rapidly as stand-off distance increases, particularly with a poor nozzle. A good range for a normal nozzle in a cleaning operation is about 125 nozzle diameters. So that at a diameter of 0.063 inches this range is less than 8 inches. Many people hold the nozzle at least a foot from the target.

If the nozzle is held about that far from the target the pressure will have fallen by perhaps 65%. The water thus reaches the target at around 2,000 psi. The flow rate is 7.62 gpm, and the actual horsepower of the water doing the work is 8.89 hp. This is 12.7% of the power that is being paid for through the meter. And the unfortunate problem is that no-one can tell, just by looking at the jet, what the pressure and flow rates are. So that often these losses go undetected, and folk merely complain about how the target material is more resistant today, not recognizing that they are throwing away 87% of the power that they are paying for.

Power losses from the power cord to the target

Figure 6. Power losses from the power cord to the target.

One of the objects of this series is to help reduce these losses, by avoiding those mistakes that those of us who started in the industry some 40-odd years ago made all the time.