From the field. Interview with Pierre-Emmanuel Rigot, Technical & Customer Service at X-RIS

May 19, 2026

Repeated X-ray tube failures were disrupting production and triggering frequent warranty replacements. Although the immediate symptom was filament failure, the underlying cause remained unclear. This case shows how operating data turned assumptions into evidence and made the root cause visible – enabling a constructive, engineering-led solution rather than repeated replacements. As Pierre-Emmanuel Rigot, After-Sales Manager and Technical Field Engineer at X-RIS, explains, the situation had become frustrating for everyone involved: “It was very frustrating for both sides.”

When failures keep repeating

The customer was operating two identical X-ray cabinets. On paper, everything looked normal. Utilization appeared legitimate. And yet, tubes kept failing. The failures were frequent enough to disrupt production. Each time a tube failed, the X-ray scanner could no longer be used. Production stopped, and because the tubes were still under warranty, every failure triggered urgency. “The cost of an X-ray tube is very high, and when it fails, production stops”, Pierre-Emmanuel explains.

From a service perspective, the pressure was equally high. Contractually, X-RIS had two days to be on-site and replace the tube. There was little room to plan, analyze, or question what was really happening. “Every six months, sometimes even more often, we had to go near Paris and replace the tube, and we only had two days to do it.” What made the situation difficult was not a lack of action, but repetition. The same failure pattern kept returning, without a clear explanation.

When the data makes the problem obvious

When Pierre-Emmanuel logged into BLOX, the situation became clear almost immediately: “The range of use of the tube was obvious - the data showed very low kV combined with very high current. The operation was concentrated between 20 and 45 kV, logged in BLOX, at full mA, and, compared with the tube datasheet, this placed the tube directly in the worst possible operating zone. “If you look at the data sheet, there is a grey zone. It’s the worst area to operate the tube.”

On top of that, the tube was being used in cycles. The maximum recorded value was 372 cycles logged in BLOX in a single day for a non-cyclic tube. “It’s completely impossible for the tube to survive under those conditions”. What had looked acceptable in isolation became clearly damaging when seen over time.

“If you look at the data sheet, there is a grey zone, and it’s the worst area to operate the tube.”

Fact box

System setup

Two identical X-ray cabinets
Non-cyclic X-ray tube design
Production environment with frequent start-stop operation

Observed issue

Repeated tube failures after 350 hours on focal spot no. 1
Production downtime as a result of each failure
Tubes replaced under warranty

Key findings

Operation concentrated at low kV and high current
Tube used in up to 372 cycles per day
Operating point consistently in the tube’s worst-case region

Outcome

Root cause identified as operating behavior, not tube defect
Recommendation to retrofit the cabinet with shutters to drastically limit the number of cycles
Tube lifetime extended from months to multiple years

When misuse can finally be explained

Before BLOX, this type of analysis was technically possible, but practically unrealistic. Data existed, but only as long operational reports, text-based, difficult to read, and time-consuming to interpret. Often, results came days later, after Comet X-ray TCS analysis. “With BLOX, you immediately see the operating behavior,” Pierre-Emmanuel explains. The graphical visualization changed the discussion. By placing the tube data sheet next to the BLOX usage curves, the misuse became undeniable. “If you take a screenshot of the data sheet and a screenshot of the BLOX chart and put them side by side, you immediately see that the tube is being misused,” – and at that point, the conversation shifted because it was no longer about opinions, assumptions, or blame, because the data made the cause visible.

What BLOX made possible

Based on this evidence, the recommendation became clear - the customer’s production process required cyclic operation. The tube, however, was not designed for that mode. “The only way to avoid failure is to install a shutter,” Pierre-Emmanuel explains. Retrofitting the cabinet with a shutter would allow continuous operation and eliminate damaging start-stop behavior. Technically, it was not a major intervention, and economically, the case was compelling. “The investment is basically the cost of one tube, and they recover it in about six months. Without the retrofit, the customer was using two to three tubes per year across two cabinets”. With a shutter, a tube could realistically last four years. “Everybody saves money with this,” Pierre-Emmanuel says.

“The retrofit cost is basically the cost of one tube, and they recover it in about six months.”

Solving the cause, not treating the symptoms

This case was not about replacing tubes faster, it was about understanding why failures kept occurring. BLOX did not change the tube design or the operating requirements; it changed how the situation was handled by making operating behavior visible.

A recurring warranty issue became a clearly defined engineering problem with a straightforward solution. For Pierre-Emmanuel, it marked a shift in how failures are approached. “This was one of my first analyses with BLOX, and it changed everything.”

“This was one of my first analyses with BLOX, and it changed everything.”

Conclusion

The value in this case was not speed. It was clarity. Once the real cause became visible, the outcome changed for everyone involved. Repeated failures stopped. Production stabilized. Warranty pressure disappeared. And the relationship shifted from replacement-driven urgency to engineering-led collaboration. The lesson is simple: When data reveals the cause, symptoms can be treated.

Facing a field challenge or seeing a pattern in operation?

Get in touch to share your case, ask a question, or help shape future “From the field” articles.

Latest Posts

From the field. Interview with Pierre-Emmanuel Rigot, Technical & Customer Service at X-RIS

May 28, 2026

This is not primarily a story about arcing; it is a story about how dangerous the wrong corrective action can be. It’s about the risk of acting without enough diagnostic certainty, and about why, in some cases, the safest decision is to slow down rather than intervene.

Film. HP 15 series

May 18, 2026

Precision Imaging and minimal downtime – the High Power 15 Series. Find out how the Xtra Performance series' dual square focal spots, independent filaments, a larger beam and field of view, and a 15-degree target angle will give you a competitive edge.

Interview with Patrick Carlson, Service Manager and Level III at North Star Imaging

May 11, 2026

The success of an inspection system is rarely decided at installation. It is decided months later, in daily use. Patrick Carlson has spent decades working inside aerospace manufacturing and inspection environments, supporting customers through change, training, and production pressure. As Service Manager and Level III at North Star Imaging, he works where systems meet reality - helping customers balance capability, ease of use, and the human side of inspection. His perspective shows why long-term performance depends as much on people and workflows as it does on technology.

Repeated filament failures – and how data changes the diagnosis