Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Summary: MTS vs. Instron

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Summary: MTS vs. Instron

    Hi

    I want to thank all the people that took the time to write and give me
    their opinions about MTS and Instron testing machines. On the positive
    side, their were very few outrightly negative comments about either
    company, which speaks well for both of them. Overall it seems to me that
    there were more positive comments about MTS. I have posted all the
    replies that I received and people can draw their own conclusions. If
    anyone else has any comments about MTS vs Instron (especially as it
    relates to their twin screw machines, I would still be delighted to hear
    from you.

    Dave
    e-mail: dbackman@labsun1.med.uottawa.ca

    --------------------------
    David,

    Faculty in our department have had access to testing machines of both
    companies and although I am more familiar with the Instron, there are
    areas that one or the other works best with.

    We have had the Instron for about 20 years and it is a well built
    workhorse
    that has been used on many projects. We have recently added our own
    digitizing adapter to allow measurementsto be collected by computer.

    Most use has been for soft tissue research and for orthopedic biomechanics
    of bone and joints.

    Since ours is the model 1100 I suspect that the newer models have left
    this one in the dark ages. It still works well.

    If you have any spepcific questions I can try to answer them directly.

    Regards,

    Marvin Sherebrin
    M. H. Sherebrin, Associate Professor
    Dept. of Medical Biophysics Phone (519) 679 2111 ext 6549
    Univ. of Western Ontario Dept phone (519) 661 3053
    London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5C1 Dept fax (519) 661 2123

    email: sherebrin@uwovax.uwo.ca

    ---------------------------

    We are using an Instron 4400 for both teaching and research and
    have found it to be reliable and easy to use. We teach sophomore
    engineering student how to run it and they do all their own
    experimental development from this instructions. The programs
    supplied are good for standard analyses but we have written many
    of our own for more sophisticated work.

    Jim van Putten
    vanputten@hope.edu

    -------------------------

    Dave:
    I only have exp. with MTS (since ~ 1980). Ask about tech support, both
    software
    and hardware - MTS is tollfree, no cost. I'm sure I have called dozens of
    times.
    I had heard other companies charged per call, etc. (sort of like some
    software
    companies offer tech support but it costs you a lot!).
    MTS service has also been top rate. Ovrall I am extremely pleased with
    MTS,
    but again, I have not had any experience with Instron. You may also want
    to
    compare the costs for maintenance contracts. MTS has some flexibility
    there,
    with different plans and features depending upon the amount of service you
    require (i.e., calibration 1X/year, 2X/year, etc.).
    Hope this little bit of info is useful.
    Kevin


    Kevin A. Thomas, Ph.D. Voice: 504-568-4680
    (main)
    Associate Professor 504-568-2254
    (direct)
    Department of Orthopaedic Surgery Facsimile: 504-568-4466
    Louisiana State University Medical Center
    2025 Gravier Street, Suite 400
    New Orleans, LA 70112

    http://www.lsumc.edu/campus/orth/surg/

    --------------------------------------

    Hi David:

    I've used Instron screw-driven testing machines for years--as well as both
    Instron and MTS servo-hydraulic systems. At the moment, I would have to
    say
    that Instron has a technical edge over MTS in the degree of digital
    interfacing and options for upgrading etc. Plus they wrote the book on
    screw-
    driven systems.

    More importantly, MTS has dissolved MTS Canada and given everything over
    to
    Intertechnology as their rep. It seems we're not as important as we used
    to
    Intertechnology as their rep. It seems we're not as important as we used
    to
    be. Either way, Instron's service has been outstanding to the point where
    they
    even look after our MTS equipment here at Dalhousie.

    In short, stick with Instron for this one.


    J. Michael Lee, Ph.D. (902) 494-6734 (Voice)
    Associate Professor (902) 494-2527 (FAX)
    Biomaterials jmlee@is.dal.ca
    Dalhousie University
    5981 University Avenue
    Halifax, Nova Scotia (902) 494-2162 Tissue Mechanics Lab
    Canada B3H 3J5 (902) 494-6784 Tissue Structure Lab

    ---------------------------------

    Dear Dave,

    It is interesting to see that you are considering purchasing MTS or
    Instron, we are also looking at the two different companies. Hence I would
    be interested in reading any replies you recieve.

    I would also like to say that I have spoken to a number of people that
    work
    at one of Swedens testing agencies (SP). They work with both MTS and
    Instron
    machines, they seem to like Instrons interface, the operator panel. Plus
    I'm told that for the machine that was purchased was cheaper from Instron
    than MTS, (8516 a hydrolic fatigue machine).

    I have to admit that I do not know anything about the two machines that
    you
    are evaluating at the moment. But you mention that the Instron 4400 is a
    twin power screw machine. I would have thought that that using screw
    threads (opposed to hydraulic systems) would greatly limit the testing
    frequency that you could use in fatigue testing. Probably not a good thing
    when testing orthopaedic implants.

    Perhaps you would also want to concider Instrons 5500 series medical
    systems, the 8511 series biomechaics system and the 8502 series biomedical
    research systems, or the MTS Bionix machine. They all have been designed
    for the medical testing, hence the acctuator is above the test area which
    should be a consideration when testing in fluids.

    I would also like to suggest that you go for the biggest and the best
    machine that you can accord, the testing machine is a long term investment
    and will last you along time. (our screw thread test machine from instron
    is over 12 years old, and still going strong, although we are limited to
    only failure tests, no fatigue tests) Hence for a research institute if
    would be good to try and foresee the future and get a machine that will be
    able to do that. i.e. you might be testing knee implants today, in five
    years a new lower limb prosthesis and in ten years tiny screws for finger
    joints.

    Good luck with your decision making

    Julie

    Julie Matthews. M.Sc
    Bioengineer
    The Institute for Applied Biotechnology
    Medicinaregatan 8B
    413 46 Gvteborg
    Sweden
    Phone 46 (0)31-416337 or 411241
    Fax 46 (0)31-414560
    email Bioteknologen@swipnet.se

    ------------------
    ----------------------------------
    Dear Dave,

    I have installed both MTS and Instron equipment in test labs and found
    both
    to be excellent. One aspect that I have found extremely important is the
    level of support from the technical sales engineer and service engineers.
    If
    you have the opportunity, speak with other facilities in your area that
    would
    have the same support personnel as you and find out how they rate the
    support. Hope this tidbit helps.

    Sincerely,

    Brent Parks
    The Union Memorial Hospital
    Biomechanics Research Laboratory
    -----------------------------------
    Dear Dave,

    I don't want to endorse either of the manufacturers you mention. However,
    in describing our choice, I will tell you about my experience. So, please
    consider it just as a personal point of view.
    We recently bought two hydraulic machines, and after careful comparison,
    we
    chose for the MTS (we bought a uniaxial and a biaxial MiniBionix).

    The reasons we did so are that:
    - the MTS software (Testar+Testware) from my point of view is more
    complete
    than the Series IX we normally use on our Instron 8502
    - the electronics on the MTS look much more robust: all the controls seat
    centralized (in the tower), and you see and give the same instructions
    from
    the PC or from the front panel.

    Against MTS: they are more expensive than Instron.

    About the service: our short term experience with the MTS service is good.
    Our recent experience with the Italian branch of Instron was not always
    satisfactory.

    I hope this is of some help. Please do not hesitate to ocntact me should
    you have more questions.

    Best regards.

    Luca Cristofolini

    Luca Cristofolini
    Luca Cristofolini
    Laboratorio di Tecnologia dei Materiali tel.
    39-(0)51-6366864
    Istituti Ortopedici Rizzoli fax.
    39-(0)51-6366863
    Via di Barbiano 1/10
    E-mail:luca@tecno.ior.it
    40136 Bologna, Italy

    --------------------------------
    Dave

    We currently use an instron model 1321 servo-hydraulic machine. it is an
    older model but the machine works well. however, the service from
    instron is bad. i am not familar with MTS.
    alex

    C. Alex Depaula
    Doctoral Candidate
    lab: 908 235-5755
    fax: 908 235-4030
    email: depaula@umdnj.edu
    http://www2.umdnj.edu/~depaula/

    ------------------------------
    Dave

    In regards to your question about the MTS vs Instron systems, I understand
    your
    dilemma quite well. We did not purchase the same type of system that
    you're
    looking at (we bought a biaxial servohydraulic one) but we found the same
    type
    of problems in making our decision. The systems for the two are probably
    very
    comparable; both MTS and Instron have a good reputation for their
    equipment.
    What eventually swayed our decision was MTS's excellent reputation for
    service
    and standing by their warranty. The reason for our decision has turned
    out to
    be worthwhile: MTS has gone above and beyond the call of duty in
    providing us
    excellent service and warranty repairs in many many ways. This has been
    true
    not only for our Bionix system but also for the MiniBionix systems we
    purchased
    more recently.

    lease note that we also have an old screwtype Instron we purchased almost
    ten
    years ago. I can't say that Instron has been bad about providing service
    for
    that system, but I will say that I am much more impressed with MTS.


    Hope this helps! I'm sure you won't go wrong either way. Feel free to
    call or
    write back if you have further questions.


    Lisa Friis, Ph.D.
    Orthopaedic Research
    Via Christi Regional Medical Center
    929 N. St. Francis
    Wichita, KS 67214
    (316) 268-5455
    efriis@kumc.edu
    -------------------------

    Dave,
    I'm not familiar with the specifics of the machines your
    considering
    but I
    am familiar with MTS and have been delighted with their customer support.
    I have an MTS Bionix 858 biaxial setup in the Orthopaedic BioMaterials Lab
    at here at Ohio State which we have upgraded and added on to several times
    including the addition of TestStar software for machine control and data
    acquisition. As a result I've had lots of contract with MTS sales,
    service, and central office. In every instance, the response has been
    stellar. Whether its test design, advice about a programming question,
    preventive maintenance, or repair we have had excellent support from MTS.
    Though not familiar with the screw-driven instruments, I can tell
    you
    that
    I've been more than satisfied with our hydraulic system. If TestStar is
    an
    option I would strongly recommend it. It's expensive (as are most MTS
    Though not familiar with the screw-driven instruments, I can tell
    you
    that
    I've been more than satisfied with our hydraulic system. If TestStar is
    an
    option I would strongly recommend it. It's expensive (as are most MTS
    purchases) but we've found it worth the cost. TestStar simplifies lab
    life
    considerably and is improving with every iteration. [Just got the Windows
    NT upgrade but haven't put it on the system yet.]
    One opinion for whatever it's worth.....


    Alan S. Litsky, M.D., Sc.D.
    Assoc. Prof. of Orthopaedics
    and Biomedical Engineering
    ---------------------------------------------------

    Hi Dave,

    While most of my experience is with servo-hydraulic systems, we also have
    some experience with screw driven machines. The department has both MTS
    and Instron machines (servo-hydraulic and screw driven). My experience is
    that if you need to do repetitive ASTM type testing, either is fine. If
    you
    need to be more creative and flexible, as we are in biomechanics, MTS
    gives you more control. The down side is that an MTS system takes longer
    to learn, and given the "idiot proof" philosophy of Instron (including
    hardware recognition) if the system will be used by a large number of
    students, that may be the way to go ( I have always found the when you
    try and make a system idiot proof, someone just makes a better idiot).
    Have you seen the Synergie systems from MTS, they provide additional
    flexibility in size and performance.

    Good luck,

    Ed

    Ed Wachtel Fax: (510) 642-6163 *
    Orthopaedic Biomechanics Laboratory Phone: (510) 642-3787 *
    2166 Etcheverry Hall e-mail:efw@euler.me.berkeley.edu *
    Dept. of Mechanical Engineering *
    University of California
    ----------------------------------
    David,

    I am a materials engineer with the University of Mississippi Medical
    Center in Jackson, MS and we have numerous mechanical tesiting equipment
    by MTS. I can say that we have been very pleased with the software
    quality and service. We recently purchased a screw machine from MTS which
    was actually made by Sintech who MTS recently bought out. The software
    was written by Sintech and is very useful to us.

    Sorry I cannot give you any experiences with Instron equipment because we
    do not have any. I have used one in the past, but it was a much older
    machine with out dated software.

    If you have any other questions please fell free to give me a call.

    Darrell Mitchell, Senior Materials Engineer Tel. (601)984-6170
    Biomaterials and Orthopaedic Surgery Fax. (601)984-6087
    University of Mississippi Medical Center
    2500 North State St.
    Jackson, MS 39216 E-mail. Dmitch@fiona.umsmed.edu

    ------------------------------
    Hope everyone finds this helpful

    Regards

    Dave

    David Backman, Mechanical Engineer
    Orthopaedic Biomechanics Laboratory
    CHEO - Research Institute
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    E-mail: dbackman@labsun1.med.uottawa.ca
Working...
X