Hello everyone,

I work in a company specialized in the manufacturing of carbon fiber components for the medical and aerospace industries. Our production includes medical tables and sandwich structures with polyurethane or Rohacell cores and carbon fiber skins. For these products, we perform non-destructive testing (NDT) to detect internal defects and evaluate radiotransparency using aluminum equivalence tests.

Currently, we are upgrading our X-ray machine, transitioning from a Siemens SV150/30/50C-100 tube (chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://oem-products.webassets.siemens-healthineers.com/1800000004200028/967c38dc9c16/Siemens-Healthineers_OEM_Data-Sheet_SV150_30_50C-100_1800000004200028.pdf) to a Comet MXR-160/20 tube (https://xray.comet.tech/en/products/mxr-160-20). I am reaching out to gather insights from professionals experienced in X-ray inspection of composite materials.

Specifically, I would like to know:

How do the Siemens SV150/30/50C-100 and Comet MXR-160/20 compare in terms of image quality and radiotransparency analysis?

Could this transition affect the accuracy and resolution of defect detection and aluminum equivalence testing?

What critical parameters should be considered when selecting an X-ray tube for inspecting sandwich composite structures?

From my initial comparison:

The Siemens tube offers higher power (30-50 kW) compared to the Comet tube's 640 W continuous rating.

The Comet tube operates at a higher nominal voltage (160 kV vs. 150 kV).

Siemens features dual focal spots (0.6/1.0 mm), while the Comet tube has a single 1.0 mm spot.

Given these differences, I'm particularly interested in understanding if the lower power and single focal spot of the Comet tube might impact the sensitivity and clarity of internal defect imaging.

Any feedback on operational experience, best practices, or critical selection criteria for such applications would be highly appreciated.

Thank you in advance for your insights!

Best regards,
Lorenzo