New FIE requirement for Eddy Current Testing of blades

[NeverWas]

So is the eddy current testing a requirement for FIE cert. from the forge?

[neevel]

So is the eddy current testing a requirement for FIE cert. from the forge?

Yes. (Material Rules, Appendix A, 6.7)

[SJCFU#2]

So is the eddy current testing a requirement for FIE cert. from the forge?

I believe that it is - Appendix A to the 2010 Material Rules, Part 1 (blades), paragraph 6.7 (non-destructive control) includes the following:

Before being put on the market, all blades must be subjected to a non-destructive control, using an electromagnetic apparatus employing Foucault currents, to explore for surface and below-surface faults. This control is compulsory, and must be carried out over the entire surface of the blade.

Of course even if every blade is tested prior to leaving the factory (as opposed to simply those which are submitted for certification testing) there's no guarantee that faults won't develop after the blades are placed into service - hence the new requirement.

[NeverWas]

So is there a pass/fail threshhold, "no greater than x% change in flux density at any point within the middle 1/3 of the blade?"
I mean, eddy currents usually spike pretty dramatically where they occur such that there's no real informative scale by which they can be measured. You either have them or you don't.

I like that this is already a certification requirement for new blades; should quiet concerns that this is a kickback to manufacturers.

[SJCFU#2]

Appendix A contains no maximum allowable values - in fact it's not even clear if each individual blade is tested or only those which are submitted to be tested for certification purposes.

It's possible that a detailed test procedures exist WRT certification however if such a document exists then the FIE doesn't appear to be all that interested in releasing it to the general public (just like they presumably maintain lists of all uniforms and points which have been approved, yet never release anything more than the lists of approved masks, foil and epee blades).

Another question which comes to mind is whether or not this is intended to apply to saber blades, given that there currently are no requirements for saber blades to be approved by the FIE?

[damianip]

The first time I saw this used, was in 1989, at the Denver World Championships. I am the only one (AFAIK) that had a weapon confiscated for failing this test. It took a lot of "pushing" to get it back. I don't think they had a clear policy set forward at that time as they seemed confused as how to handle the failed blade.

Ironically, I believe that Angelo Mazzoni took a broken epee in the thigh in the MET final that year. Luckily, he was only nicked and could continue after being patched up.

While the additional testing can't guarantee zero blade breakage, I can understand trying to minimize the chances of an injury, especially at high profile events. Also, a purpose designed EC tester shouldn't be too expensive.

Paolo

[DHCJr]

Just to feed your suspicions, there also appears to be a new requirement for visor masks to include a separate, sacrificial layer on top of the main protective layer (of course if the bigwigs really are secret shareholders then they will invalidate all existing certifications of visor masks, including those which already incorporate this feature, then reinstate the requirement for their use, thereby forcing everyone to buy a new, freshly certified mask).

Hopefully all this discussion regarding homologation also means that the FIE web site will eventually include lists of ALL items which have been approved (the only lists of approved equipment currently available are those for blades and masks), along with copies of the technical handbooks related to homologation for each individual item of equipment (the current handbook only discusses homologation of blades, masks and pistes).

The only other item that would have a list is uniforms, which would be good to have. Page 10 of the Handbook for Homologation of Fencing Equipment is very interesting. Individual Piste are certified, NOT all piste of that type by a manufacturer, like masks are. This brings up an interesting point, many piste now are made in sections. Does each section have a serial number. What happens if you replace one section? Has anyone ever heard of Greenapple? In 2008-2009 they had 157 piste certified, AllStar had 95 and all the rest total was only 120.

[brtech]

Green apple is the manufacturer of the thinner sectional strips with about a meter long sections. USFA has several of these with various markings including PBT, SwordMasters and Greenapple. They don't have a good anti skid bottom, and thus need to be taped down both sides when used on concrete.

[KD5MDK]

They seem to work pretty well on wood and Tartan, which isn't of course the same thing.

I feel like I've seen a recent FIE reference to approved gloves, which is of course silliness.

[neevel]

I feel like I've seen a recent FIE reference to approved gloves, which is of course silliness.

It's something that's been floated about as one idea to deal with the spate of injuries due to the (perfectly intact) palms of gloves being penetrated by perfectly intact, fully-in-conformance-with-the-rules sabre blades. You can do a search for a couple of threads regarding the problem. I wouldn't entirely dismiss it as silly, since it is an attempt to respond to a demonstrably real problem that has resulted in non-trivial injuries.

[damianip]

They seem to work pretty well on wood and Tartan, which isn't of course the same thing.

I feel like I've seen a recent FIE reference to approved gloves, which is of course silliness.

Given my track record of hand injuries (stop posting the French grip, I know...), an FIE glove doesn't sound so silly to my ears (and hands).

Paolo