finishing.com logo
    HOME / sitemapFAQsBOOKSHelp WantedsAdvertiseContact   you are here: Hotline/Forum => Letter 52236
most fun in metal finishing

AMS2468 vs. AMS2469

May 27, 2009

I am interested in learning why ams2468 was cancelled? My part requirements have ams2468 on the blueprint, however, ams2468 is "cancelled" and replaced by the latest version of ams2469. Are there any significant differences between these specifications? Why the need for this spec to be cancelled? Is it due to an industry standard or a process change?

Jim Pohorylo
project engineer - Middletown, Connecticut

June 2, 2009

AMS 2468 was cancelled back in Sept of 1999. My memory's not good enough to remember why we did that, but looking at it and AMS 2469 shows that they're both for hard anodize of aluminum. While 2469 included a corrosion test on sealed test panels, 2468 did not. Otherwise they were almost identical.

My guess is that our thinking at the time was "Why have two specs for the same thing? If I get my parts sealed, I'm going to want a corrosion test, so let's cancel the spec that doesn't require that test, and replace it with the one that does." The corrosion test is a periodic test; it's not done every lot. Finally since parts processed to AMS 2469 meet and exceed the requirements of AMS 2468, I doubt we had much discussion on the decision.

Lee Gearhart
metallurgist
East Aurora, New York



July 9, 2009

Lee,

Can the same approach be maintained for review of few more standards? Such as AMS QQ-P-416 w.r.t. AMS 2400, AMS 2410 w.r.t. AMS2411 etc?

Biren Desai
- Bangalore

ADD a Q or A to THIS thread START a NEW THREADView This Week's HOT TOPICS

disclaim

 seek

JobshopsCapital Equip. & Install'nChemicals & Consumables Consult'g, Train'g, SoftwareEnvironmental ComplianceTesting Svcs. & DevicesUsed & Surplus


©1995-2014 finishing.com     -    Privacy    -    Search