M
Would anyone care to share their experience of the dimensional accuracy of the conical Luer fittings that I perhaps naively believed should have an included angle represented by a 6% slope?
Briefly, we have an issue relating to the mating of an OEM supplied female Luer non-return valve with 'standard' disposable syringes as found ubiquitously throughout the world's healthcare system.
Until very recently I had not needed to consult ISO 594/1 which describes typical dimensions of male and female conical fittings and goes on to describe the requirements in terms of gauging, air & liquid leakage, separation force and stress cracking. So far so good.
However having assembled a collection of disposable syringes made by five different manufacturers and measured the dimensions of the male conical fittings using Vernier callipers it is clear that that actual included angles of this admittedly small sample vary from 4.25 to 5.14%. These items may all meet the gauging and other requirements of the standard, but they certainly don't approach 6%. I do not possess the requisite ring and plug gauges to assess this point at present. Clearly fittings with a more acute angle than nominal would be expected to enter into a mating fitting further than one closer to the nominal.
Is it possible that a female fitting similarly departing from the nominal in the obtuse direction, but still meeting the requirements of the standard would result in the two components bottoming out before a secure joint is made?
Is the range of angles represented by my sample common or expected and would they normally be expected to mate satisfactorily with female fittings that might exhibit a similar variability?
Any experience that you might care to share will be gratefully received.
Mike
Briefly, we have an issue relating to the mating of an OEM supplied female Luer non-return valve with 'standard' disposable syringes as found ubiquitously throughout the world's healthcare system.
Until very recently I had not needed to consult ISO 594/1 which describes typical dimensions of male and female conical fittings and goes on to describe the requirements in terms of gauging, air & liquid leakage, separation force and stress cracking. So far so good.
However having assembled a collection of disposable syringes made by five different manufacturers and measured the dimensions of the male conical fittings using Vernier callipers it is clear that that actual included angles of this admittedly small sample vary from 4.25 to 5.14%. These items may all meet the gauging and other requirements of the standard, but they certainly don't approach 6%. I do not possess the requisite ring and plug gauges to assess this point at present. Clearly fittings with a more acute angle than nominal would be expected to enter into a mating fitting further than one closer to the nominal.
Is it possible that a female fitting similarly departing from the nominal in the obtuse direction, but still meeting the requirements of the standard would result in the two components bottoming out before a secure joint is made?
Is the range of angles represented by my sample common or expected and would they normally be expected to mate satisfactorily with female fittings that might exhibit a similar variability?
Any experience that you might care to share will be gratefully received.
Mike
for the nice complement. The fingers and voice on the videos are mine