Visual inspection in the first step of our investigation, we performed a visual inspection of the product.We have checked for possible damages, deformations of the housing or other abnormalities.The following observations were made during the visual inspection: - no deformation of the housing, deposits, etc.Permeability test in detail, the valve was tested for permeability in order to identify the suspected blockage.To check if the gav 2.0 is blocked, we have performed a permeability test on the valve.This test is carried out with the product in the horizontal position with a hydrostatic pressure difference of approx.30 cmh2o in the direction of flow.The test showed that the gav 2.0 is permeable.Computer controlled test the computer controlled test has shown the opening pressure of the gav 2.0, at a reference flow rate of 20 ml/hr in a vertical position, to be 33,03 cmh2o.This is still within the specified tolerance of 35 cmh2o ± 4 cmh2o.An applied pressure of 35 cmh2o, with the device in the vertical position is expected to have a resultant opening pressure of 35 cmh2o ± 4 cmh2o.Additionally, the gav 2.0 was tested according to standard procedure in the horizontal position.At a fixed opening pressure of 5 cmh2o in the horizontal position, a pressure of 5 cmh2o ± 3 cmh2o is expected.The results indicated that at a reference flow of 20 ml/hr in the horizontal position, the gav 2.0 had a pressure of 5,27 cmh2o.This is within the specified tolerance of 5 cmh2o ± 3 cmh2o.Results based on our investigation, we are not able to substantiate the claim of "transmission pressure too high."" at the time of the investigation, it is not clear to us how the mentioned functional impairment occurred.We can exclude a defect at the time of release.The valve met all specifications of the final inspection when released from christoph miethke gmbh & co.Kg.
|