Healthcare reform and the Affordable Care Act have been major buzzwords in the media for some time now. People are getting more familiar with the new system as time passes, but one facet in particular hasn’t gotten as much attention – the impacts of the Affordable Care Act on health startups.
In addition to opportunities for new health insurance companies, medical technology startups are also benefitting in this new healthcare landscape. A recent article in MedCity News provided a run-down of benefits for medtech startups in the age of healthcare reform.
Because hospitals now have more incentive to keep patients healthier and decrease readmissions, the need for wearable and remote monitoring tools is expected to rise sharply. These advanced medical monitoring devices will allow doctors to read vitals and track metrics without patients needing to leave home.
New telemedicine innovations are also expected to see increasing demand, as doctors leverage technology to keep tabs on patients, rather than scheduling in-office visits for regular updates. As discussed in the article, this can be especially useful for those who live far away from their primary care physicians and aren’t in need of urgent care.
Mark-10 manufactures force and torque measuring gauges, test stands, grips, software, and accessories for a wide range of applications within the medical device, pharmaceutical, and other industries. Consider Mark-10 for syringe force testing, needle sharpness testing, wire terminal testing, cap torque testing, and much more. For more information about our products and their diverse uses, feel free to browse our product applications gallery.
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
Friday, October 14, 2011
Engineered Better - More Than Just A Slogan
In designing our all new Plug & TestTM family of digital force/torque indicators and remote sensors, we did more than just redesign our BGI indicator. The BGI was an industry innovation when it took the market by storm almost two decades ago, and continues to serve many industries and applications today. It introduced the concept of "plug and play" interchangeable external sensors. The idea caught on quickly, and others attempted to replicate it. The BGI and its imitators used a simple DB-9, DB-15, or other type of common connection between sensor and indicator. A simple upgrade of the electronics and display could have sufficed, but our engineers again thought outside the box.
Firstly, why should the customer be forced to purchase a full-featured, sophisticated indicator with a sensor, when all they need is basic functionality, such as peak capture? If they don't need to calculate the average load over time, save data memory, use external trigger mode, or a number of other advanced functions, why should they have to pay for it? Enter our Models 5i and 3i indicators - the 5i for those seeking the most advanced solution, and the 3i for those with more modest requirements. They are priced according to their abilities - $895 for the 5i, and $545 for the 3i - the force measurement industry's lowest cost indicator. Our range of force and torque sensors covers up to 10,000 lbF (50 kN) of force and 5,000 lbFin (550 Nm) of torque, and any sensor is compatible with either indicator.
Secondly, although that DB-15 plastic connector did work just fine in the past, we wanted to introduce something that would once again set the industry standard. Enter the Plug & TestTM connector - a machined aluminum connector shaped to match the contour of the indicator itself, then sandblasted, nickel plated for a satiny finish. The connector locks into the housing of either the 5i or 3i indicator with an authoritative "click". Spring-loaded dual buttons on the housing indicator release the connector for easy removal.
These are but two more examples of Mark-10's continuous focus on engineering. We always strive to develop solutions that satisfy customers' requirements in an elegant and attractive package. In the case of Plug & TestTM, we think you'll agree!
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
A Valuable Lesson in Efficiency
On a recent trip to London, I rented a car and experienced a valuable lesson in efficiency and environmental friendliness. A few years ago, city leaders decided that a toll should be levied on drivers who enter the city center as a way to alleviate gridlocked traffic, air pollution, and of course to raise additional revenue. Dubbed a “Congestion Pricing" scheme, any vehicle entering a designated area must pay a daily toll. The toll is paid online, and can be purchased for a single day, or in multiple day blocks. A sophisticated network of cameras placed around the perimeter records all vehicles entering the zone, and then compares license plates numbers with a comprehensive database of vehicle registration data. If your toll was not paid, the city will know, and failure to pay the toll that same day or soon after results in a hefty fine.
Although I had to part with a considerable chunk of change, the London experience triggered a slight smile, because I was so awed by the efficiency of it. It brought to mind the ancient system of toll collecting we have in many places back home. Like my fellow New Yorkers, I have grown accustomed to gridlocked traffic approaching toll booths around highways, bridges, and tunnels. Even for those of us with a wireless payment device like EZPass, traffic is still heavy. Besides the time delay factor, many other negative consequences surround toll booths. Noxious fumes from idling 18 wheelers prompt me to close the window and blast re-circulated air conditioning. And, I inevitably notice the swanky office building of the local transportation agency, typically a modernist wonder of architecture that would make Frank Lloyd Wright proud, replete with sweeping expanses of tinted glass, grand entrances, and landscaping suitable for a botanical garden. Finally, I am on my way, braving through a potholed, rusted bridge or tunnel, ostensibly because the transportation agency is perpetually cash strapped.
How many billions of dollars are wasted through this scheme? Think of all the lost time opportunities for delivery trucks, salespeople, professionals, and countless others. Think of all the money funneled into redundant transportation agencies. And think of the environmental damage produced from idling traffic. In a time when our government’s deficit is growing at a startling rate and massive federal stimulus packages increase federal spending even further, wouldn’t it make more sense to consider cost reductions in areas that are wasteful, inefficient, and harmful to the environment all at the same time?
Our government would be wise to borrow some ideas from across the Pond.
Although I had to part with a considerable chunk of change, the London experience triggered a slight smile, because I was so awed by the efficiency of it. It brought to mind the ancient system of toll collecting we have in many places back home. Like my fellow New Yorkers, I have grown accustomed to gridlocked traffic approaching toll booths around highways, bridges, and tunnels. Even for those of us with a wireless payment device like EZPass, traffic is still heavy. Besides the time delay factor, many other negative consequences surround toll booths. Noxious fumes from idling 18 wheelers prompt me to close the window and blast re-circulated air conditioning. And, I inevitably notice the swanky office building of the local transportation agency, typically a modernist wonder of architecture that would make Frank Lloyd Wright proud, replete with sweeping expanses of tinted glass, grand entrances, and landscaping suitable for a botanical garden. Finally, I am on my way, braving through a potholed, rusted bridge or tunnel, ostensibly because the transportation agency is perpetually cash strapped.
How many billions of dollars are wasted through this scheme? Think of all the lost time opportunities for delivery trucks, salespeople, professionals, and countless others. Think of all the money funneled into redundant transportation agencies. And think of the environmental damage produced from idling traffic. In a time when our government’s deficit is growing at a startling rate and massive federal stimulus packages increase federal spending even further, wouldn’t it make more sense to consider cost reductions in areas that are wasteful, inefficient, and harmful to the environment all at the same time?
Our government would be wise to borrow some ideas from across the Pond.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Confusing or genius? You decide!
In introducing our ESM301 motorized force test stand, we decided to do something revolutionary for the force measurement industry. Instead of forcing customers to choose from one or two or more pre-configured models which include a “hard-wired” selection of features and specifications, we decided to give the power to the people!
The ESM301 test stand is designed on a modular platform that lets users select only those features that are required for their testing purposes. We started out with a solid mechanical structure – a 300 lb (1.5 kN) capacity frame, fully enclosed, with digital controller, speed selection, basic controls, and emergency stop. Then we added a slew of available options to increase the test stand’s capabilities – features like expanded speed ranges, programmable cycling, programmable travel limits, PC control, and more. Customers can customize their test stand to suit their requirements, and pay for only what they need.
Why is this important? Consider the following application example: XYZ Company’s Quality Lab requires a test stand with a speed range of 40 in/min and the ability to set a travel distance limit. The solution from another manufacturer: a prepackaged test stand with a price tag of around $7,000. That same test stand also includes a number of bells and whistles, which are indeed important for some customers. But to XYZ, they would be forced to purchase a test stand with more features than they actually have a use for, at a price that reflects that sobering reality. With Mark-10 in the picture, XYZ’s lab manager could custom-configure an ESM301 test stand to include the high speed range extension, travel indication feature, and programmable travel limit feature. The total price: around $4,000.
To address the possible need for additional features down the road, most features can be enabled in the field through a simple activation code.
The last time you bought a car, you probably went through the car’s options list and selected only those features you had an interest in. Maybe you ordered leather seating and a sunroof, but left out the navigation system option. Similarly, in the computer industry, Michael Dell revolutionized the PC industry by allowing customers to custom build their computer according to their needs and budgets.
If that’s the way you buy cars and computers, why should your force measurement equipment be any different?
To learn more about our configurable ESM301 test stand, click here.
Questions? Comments? Please feel free to post!
The ESM301 test stand is designed on a modular platform that lets users select only those features that are required for their testing purposes. We started out with a solid mechanical structure – a 300 lb (1.5 kN) capacity frame, fully enclosed, with digital controller, speed selection, basic controls, and emergency stop. Then we added a slew of available options to increase the test stand’s capabilities – features like expanded speed ranges, programmable cycling, programmable travel limits, PC control, and more. Customers can customize their test stand to suit their requirements, and pay for only what they need.
Why is this important? Consider the following application example: XYZ Company’s Quality Lab requires a test stand with a speed range of 40 in/min and the ability to set a travel distance limit. The solution from another manufacturer: a prepackaged test stand with a price tag of around $7,000. That same test stand also includes a number of bells and whistles, which are indeed important for some customers. But to XYZ, they would be forced to purchase a test stand with more features than they actually have a use for, at a price that reflects that sobering reality. With Mark-10 in the picture, XYZ’s lab manager could custom-configure an ESM301 test stand to include the high speed range extension, travel indication feature, and programmable travel limit feature. The total price: around $4,000.
To address the possible need for additional features down the road, most features can be enabled in the field through a simple activation code.
The last time you bought a car, you probably went through the car’s options list and selected only those features you had an interest in. Maybe you ordered leather seating and a sunroof, but left out the navigation system option. Similarly, in the computer industry, Michael Dell revolutionized the PC industry by allowing customers to custom build their computer according to their needs and budgets.
If that’s the way you buy cars and computers, why should your force measurement equipment be any different?
To learn more about our configurable ESM301 test stand, click here.
Questions? Comments? Please feel free to post!
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
A Friendly Tech Tip: Size Matters
How relevant is the capacity of a force or torque measuring instrument to the expected load during a test? More than many people think.
The accuracy of measuring instruments can be specified in two ways. In some cases, accuracy is specified as a percentage of actual reading, in other cases as a percentage of full scale. Mark-10 specifies accuracy as a percentage of full scale. What does that mean exactly?
Consider the following analogy: Suppose you are weighing yourself on a 300 lb capacity common bathroom scale that specifies accuracy of ±2% of full scale. 2% of 300 lb equals 6 lb. If you weigh yourself and the scale shows 150 lb, your true weight could be anywhere between 144 and 156 lb. Even though the accuracy specification is ±2% of full scale, the percentage reading error could be up to 6 lb / 150 lb = 4%. Suppose your weight is only 100 lb. The percentage reading error could be as high as 6%. The lower the load, the greater the percentage reading error.
The same principle applies to our force and torque measuring instruments. Since accuracy is typically specified as a percentage of full scale, there is a fixed numerical value by which the reading may be incorrect at any point in the range of the instrument. Accordingly, it's important to select an instrument with capacity as close as possible to the expected maximum force.
For example, our Series BG digital force gauges specify accuracy of ±0.2% of full scale ±1 digit (increment). In the case of the BG100 force gauge (with capacity of 100 lb), the specification translates into an error of 0.25 lb. This is calculated as follows: 100 lb x 0.2% = 0.2 lb + 1 digit [0.05 lb] = 0.25 lb.
If the total observed force is 80 lb, a maximum error of 0.25 lb represents a percentage reading error of approximately 0.3%. If, however, the total observed force is only 2 lb, the percentage reading error is 12.5%. Such an error could easily mean the difference between an acceptable product and a reject.
A quick evaluation of the maximum expected load during your test and an evaluation of the available capacities of force and torque measuring instruments will go a long way in ensuring that your samples are tested as accurately as possible.
Questions? Comments? Feel free to post!
The accuracy of measuring instruments can be specified in two ways. In some cases, accuracy is specified as a percentage of actual reading, in other cases as a percentage of full scale. Mark-10 specifies accuracy as a percentage of full scale. What does that mean exactly?
Consider the following analogy: Suppose you are weighing yourself on a 300 lb capacity common bathroom scale that specifies accuracy of ±2% of full scale. 2% of 300 lb equals 6 lb. If you weigh yourself and the scale shows 150 lb, your true weight could be anywhere between 144 and 156 lb. Even though the accuracy specification is ±2% of full scale, the percentage reading error could be up to 6 lb / 150 lb = 4%. Suppose your weight is only 100 lb. The percentage reading error could be as high as 6%. The lower the load, the greater the percentage reading error.
The same principle applies to our force and torque measuring instruments. Since accuracy is typically specified as a percentage of full scale, there is a fixed numerical value by which the reading may be incorrect at any point in the range of the instrument. Accordingly, it's important to select an instrument with capacity as close as possible to the expected maximum force.
For example, our Series BG digital force gauges specify accuracy of ±0.2% of full scale ±1 digit (increment). In the case of the BG100 force gauge (with capacity of 100 lb), the specification translates into an error of 0.25 lb. This is calculated as follows: 100 lb x 0.2% = 0.2 lb + 1 digit [0.05 lb] = 0.25 lb.
If the total observed force is 80 lb, a maximum error of 0.25 lb represents a percentage reading error of approximately 0.3%. If, however, the total observed force is only 2 lb, the percentage reading error is 12.5%. Such an error could easily mean the difference between an acceptable product and a reject.
A quick evaluation of the maximum expected load during your test and an evaluation of the available capacities of force and torque measuring instruments will go a long way in ensuring that your samples are tested as accurately as possible.
Questions? Comments? Feel free to post!
Friday, July 25, 2008
"Hi, I'm Looking For A Pull Tester"
Over the years we've come across numerous inquiries for such items as "wire pull testers", "peel testers", "tensile testers", and other similarly worded "testers". Some customers are surprised to hear that we don't sell testers per se, but rather, that a Mark-10 tester is actually a system consisting of several individual components.
The number of possible combinations of components to satisfy a requirement can be quite extensive. This broad range of combinations makes it possible to customize a tester suited to the exact requirements of the test, as opposed to an integrated tester available in only one flavor.
Tester components typically include a test stand, force gauge, grips, software, and accessories. To some customers, these individual product terms may not be familiar. To help understand what these components are and how they can be configured for specific applications, we've developed a section of our website (click here) that identifies and explains system components. In addition, comparison charts are available to identify the major differences between our various series of gauges and test stands.
If our website still isn't clear enough, further assistance in configuring a tester is always a quick phone call or email away.
Happy testing!
The number of possible combinations of components to satisfy a requirement can be quite extensive. This broad range of combinations makes it possible to customize a tester suited to the exact requirements of the test, as opposed to an integrated tester available in only one flavor.
Tester components typically include a test stand, force gauge, grips, software, and accessories. To some customers, these individual product terms may not be familiar. To help understand what these components are and how they can be configured for specific applications, we've developed a section of our website (click here) that identifies and explains system components. In addition, comparison charts are available to identify the major differences between our various series of gauges and test stands.
If our website still isn't clear enough, further assistance in configuring a tester is always a quick phone call or email away.
Happy testing!
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Test Stand Travel / Clearance / Throat: What's The Difference?
With so many different force test stands available, choosing one that suits your needs may seem a difficult task. However, this decision can be made easier by clarifying some confusion in the differences between specifications for travel distance, clearance, and throat depth.
Clearance (also known as daylight) is defined as the maximum possible distance between the force gauge's loading shaft and the base of the test stand. This specification is useful in determining if the sample's dimensions fit into the constraints of the test stand. Clearance does not take grips, fixtures, or other attachments into account. That is, if such accessories are used to help secure the sample during a test, these will cut into clearance, since one such accessory is normally mounted to the force gauge, and the other to the test stand's base. It is, therefore, important to note the overall length of these accessories and factor them into your calculations. If it is determined that the clearance is insufficient, most Mark-10 test stands' columns can be extended.
Throat depth is also a distance specification, only this refers to the maximum possible distance between the centerline of the force gauge's loading shaft and the column. In determining whether a sample will fit within the constraints of the stand, throat depth should be doubled to calculate the maximum possible sample diameter.
Travel distance (also known as stroke) is often confused with clearance, but the two are quite different. Travel distance is defined as the maximum travel the force gauge is able to move vertically along the length of the column. Many applications require relatively little travel, such as Belleville washer testing. However, in testing elastic materials such as rubber, plastics, elastomers, and others, longer travel is required.
With these specifications clearly defined, choosing an appropriate test stand should not be too daunting a task after all. We provide a comparison chart that compares stands on these, and other, specifications, and can be seen here: http://www.mark-10.com/instruments/stands/stand%20comparison.html.
Happy testing!
Clearance (also known as daylight) is defined as the maximum possible distance between the force gauge's loading shaft and the base of the test stand. This specification is useful in determining if the sample's dimensions fit into the constraints of the test stand. Clearance does not take grips, fixtures, or other attachments into account. That is, if such accessories are used to help secure the sample during a test, these will cut into clearance, since one such accessory is normally mounted to the force gauge, and the other to the test stand's base. It is, therefore, important to note the overall length of these accessories and factor them into your calculations. If it is determined that the clearance is insufficient, most Mark-10 test stands' columns can be extended.
Throat depth is also a distance specification, only this refers to the maximum possible distance between the centerline of the force gauge's loading shaft and the column. In determining whether a sample will fit within the constraints of the stand, throat depth should be doubled to calculate the maximum possible sample diameter.
Travel distance (also known as stroke) is often confused with clearance, but the two are quite different. Travel distance is defined as the maximum travel the force gauge is able to move vertically along the length of the column. Many applications require relatively little travel, such as Belleville washer testing. However, in testing elastic materials such as rubber, plastics, elastomers, and others, longer travel is required.
With these specifications clearly defined, choosing an appropriate test stand should not be too daunting a task after all. We provide a comparison chart that compares stands on these, and other, specifications, and can be seen here: http://www.mark-10.com/instruments/stands/stand%20comparison.html.
Happy testing!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)