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 For the non-chemist, this is really the simpler way to do it. Ray Kremer Stellar Solutions, Inc. We found a thread which appears to answer your question, and appended your inquiry to it. 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 to have come from the Electroplaters Process Control Handbook circa
|Date Added:||12 July 2012|
|File Size:||40.79 Mb|
|Operating Systems:||Windows NT/2000/XP/2003/2003/7/8/10 MacOS 10/X|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
All you're really expected to do is source nitric acid that is labeled as compliant to O-N, and then mix it in the volume percent qms. QQ-P can't be helped, really. Type 2 is fine for any grade that type 6 or 7 would be used on. April 22, A.
There can be a problem with using Type 2 when type 6 or 7 is required. I am a mechanical engineer working at a company that manufactures ordnance devices for military usage. 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? AMS section 3.
For the non-chemist, this is really the simpler way to do it. I am attempting to bring them to the attention of the committee governing it for consideration for the next revision. Type 2, however, is nitric acid with sodium dichromate at a moderate temperature. If you can point out for me specific text or section numbers that you find confusing, I can present that to the committee as evidence that things should be reworded for clarity.
The difference is sample size for verification testing. All information presented is for general reference and does not represent a professional opinion nor the policy of an author's employer. However, if the parts came out of the Type II bath with an acceptable appearance and there were no other difficulties, then they should be fine to use.
Has AMS-QQ-P-35 Been Superseded by AMS 2700?
Two different things are never really "the same" of course, J, so please add a few more sentences so we can more clearly understand your question. In researching this it seems that no one ever does volume percent, everything is in weight percent.
June 10, A. If there is not a problem, then why would there be a separate callout depending on whether you are passivating vs SST? C almost 27 years ago.
AMS-QQ-P Passivation Treatments For Corrosion-Resistant Steel_百度文库
Can the sodium dichromate damage the SST in any way? The notice for this is available from https: September 23, Q.
The parts have already been made, but they were passivated using the Type II solution. I would appreciate others thoughts on this. If I am misreading your question and you feel it is not answered, or you wish to follow up, get back to us.
The problem is that you will not have provided what the customer required. We are Nadcap accredited for Chemical Processing, specifically passivation, and as such we follow AMS to the letter. Regards, Ted Mooney, P. AMS gives requirements for Nitric Acid concentration in volume percent. Tino, I have never seen a nitric acid concentration for a passivation bath expressed in weight percent, always volume percent. I expect that this is for ease of use, as the volume of concentrated nitric acid is much easier for qqq workers to measure l than the weight.
QQ-P C NOTICE-3 PASSIVATION TREATMENTS STEEL
Well, O-N is all in weight percent, as is A-A which superceded it. 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 to have come from the Electroplaters Process Control Handbook circa It can be argued that it is demonstrable that the parts have been passivated but that may not be good enough especially when types 6 and 7 are straight nitric acid at different concentrations aks temperatures.
And QQ-P's definition of Lot is strange.