What is a typical example of a "nonrelevant indication" in penetrant testing?

In penetrant testing, a typical example of a "nonrelevant indication" is indeed those that arise due to part geometry or part design configurations. Nonrelevant indications refer to signals that do not represent actual defects within the material but are instead caused by the inherent characteristics of the object being tested.

When evaluating parts, their shape and features may create areas where penetrant material collects, leading to signals that could be mistaken for defects but are actually just a result of how the part is designed or formed. These signals do not compromise the structural integrity of the material and therefore do not require remediation.

Understanding how the geometry of a part can affect penetrant testing results is crucial, as it allows testers to differentiate between genuine flaws that need addressing and false indications that may lead to unnecessary inspections or repairs. This helps in improving the efficiency and reliability of the testing process, ensuring that only significant defects are flagged for further investigation.

The other options generally concern actual conditions that could signify defects or issues that may need resolution, such as surface contamination or coating errors. These are considered relevant indications as they can indicate real problems affecting the integrity of the material.