Hydrostatic Pressure Test vs Visual Inspection

The ultimate 'trust but verify' for pressure systems meets the og bug catcher. Here's our take.

Hydrostatic Pressure Test

Nice Pick

The ultimate 'trust but verify' for pressure systems. Because nobody wants a surprise leak at 1000 PSI.

Pros

• Highly reliable for detecting leaks and structural weaknesses in closed systems
• Uses water as a safe, non-toxic, and cost-effective testing medium
• Provides clear pass/fail results with minimal risk of catastrophic failure during testing

Cons

• Requires significant setup time and equipment, including pumps and pressure gauges
• Not suitable for systems that cannot tolerate water exposure or require dry testing

Visual Inspection

The OG bug catcher. No fancy tools, just eyeballs and coffee.

Pros

• Catches subtle UI/UX issues automated tests miss
• Requires no setup or dependencies
• Encourages team collaboration and knowledge sharing

Cons

• Highly subjective and prone to human error
• Time-consuming and not scalable for large codebases

The Verdict

Use Hydrostatic Pressure Test if: You want highly reliable for detecting leaks and structural weaknesses in closed systems and can live with requires significant setup time and equipment, including pumps and pressure gauges.

Use Visual Inspection if: You prioritize catches subtle ui/ux issues automated tests miss over what Hydrostatic Pressure Test offers.

The Bottom Line

Hydrostatic Pressure Test wins

The ultimate 'trust but verify' for pressure systems. Because nobody wants a surprise leak at 1000 PSI.