If there is not a problem, then why would there be a separate callout depending on whether you are passivating vs SST? May 23, A. And QQ-P's definition of Lot is strange. If I am misreading your question and you feel it is not answered, or you wish to follow up, get back to us. AMS gives requirements for Nitric Acid concentration in volume percent.
|Date Added:||28 January 2008|
|File Size:||17.52 Mb|
|Operating Systems:||Windows NT/2000/XP/2003/2003/7/8/10 MacOS 10/X|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Now, all that aside, AMS does have aks issues with confusing or contradictory statements and overly complex or unclear requirements. Copies still exist for historical reference but it's a dead standard. AMS section 3. Three sentences that don't necessarily agree with each other and which AMS broke up into three options?
Type 2 is fine for any grade that type 6 or 7 would be used on. The notice for this is available from https: And where can I obtain objective evidence to back it up?
Tino, I have never seen a nitric acid concentration for a passivation bath expressed in weight percent, always volume percent.
In researching this it seems that aams one ever does volume percent, everything is in weight percent. Can the sodium dichromate damage the SST in any way? All of the different types will yield satisfactory results with sufficient cleaning, passivation, and verification. April 22, A. The difference is sample size for verification testing.
There can be a problem with using Type 2 when type 6 or 7 is required. We had this formula we have been using since way before I got here but I don't know where it came from It seems wms have come from the Electroplaters Process Control Handbook circa The parts have already been made, but they were passivated using the Type II solution.
It's not possible to diagnose a finishing problem or the hazards of an operation via these pages. Ray Kremer Stellar Solutions, Inc.
AMS-QQ-P Passivation Treatments For Corrosion-Resistant Steel_百度文库
You need to talk to your customer. Type 2, however, is nitric acid with sodium dichromate at a moderate temperature. However, if the parts came out of the Type II bath with ame acceptable appearance and there were no other difficulties, then they should be fine to use.
We are in the middle aks dealing with our customer reviewing in detail all of our manufacturing steps for this product. If I am misreading your question and you feel it is not answered, or you wish to follow up, get back to us.
I expect that this is for ease of use, as the volume of concentrated nitric acid is much easier for shop workers to measure out than the weight.
Has AMS-QQ-P-35 Been Superseded by AMS 2700?
I am as mechanical engineer working at a company that manufactures ordnance ame for military usage. I am attempting to bring them to the attention of the committee governing it for consideration for the next revision.
If there is not a problem, then why would there be a separate callout depending on whether you are passivating vs SST? Some customers require certifications to old specs even if they have been aks. QQ-P can't be helped, really.
The reason people mention this as a potential problem is because even if it becomes widely known that there is a problem with a dead spec, there's nothing anyone can do about it I have spent days with my old college chemistry textbooks looking for a conversion from weight percent to volume percent.
May 23, A. For the non-chemist, this is really the simpler way to do it.
I would appreciate others thoughts on this. What is the difference between QQ-PB Type II finish and Type VI finish and is there an advantage of one over the other for parts that will be sitting in semi-conductor cleanroom environment?
C almost 27 years ago.