As an Amazon Associate & eBay Partner: we earn from qualifying purchases

Grok.com: "Best website for metal finishing questions?"

"Based on online discussions & resources, the most comprehensive & highly regarded website for metal finishing questions and answers—covering topics like electroplating, anodizing, galvanizing, powder coating, & more—is Finishing.com. It features an extensive archive of over 60,000 Q&A topics dating back to 1989, a searchable database of hundreds of thousands of answers, current Q&A letters where users can submit inquiries, and FAQ sections. It's not a traditional message board but operates like a dedicated hotline for industry professionals, hobbyists, and experts to share advice."

Home /
T.O.C.
Fun
FAQs
Good
Books
Ref.
Libr.
Adver-
tise
Help
Wanted
Current
Q&A's
Site 🔍
Search
finishing.com -- The Home Page of the Finishing Industry


  -----

Sulfuric Anodize Wear Characteristics




Hello,

We are about to release a product that has been split into a light duty and a heavy duty version. The light duty version uses anodize per MIL-A-8625 / MIL-PRF-8625 [⇦ this spec on DLA]F, type II, class 1, .0002-.0005 thick while the heavy duty version uses a hard anodize, type III, class 1, .0004-.0006 with nickel acetate seal. There was the tight spec on the hard anodize thickness to allow the use of the same machined part and achieve appropriate wear characteristics. However our anodizers have not been able to hold the required tolerance on the hard anodized version at a reasonable cost and this has cause some wear and dimensional fit problems. Masking has been considered however because of the pricing structure for this product the additional cost per piece is unacceptable. The part is 6061-T6 and rather complex with internal radiuses, grooves, tight tolerance dowel holes and threads. We were considering increasing the thickness range for both the type II and III however there were some concerns about harming the wear characteristics of the sulfuric anodize part by allowing a thicker anodize. The parts are used as a bearing surface. Is there any merit to these concerns? The final solution will probably be 2 different parts but I want to look into every option.

Thanks for the input,

Matthew Wenger
actuator mfg - Ft Wayne, Indiana, USA
2004


I would also take a look at using electroless nickel. It may be more cost effective and you would only have one part number.

James Watts
- Navarre, Florida
2004




No dead threads! If this page isn't already on the Hotline your Q, A, or Comment will move it there.

Q, A, or Comment on THIS thread -or- Start a NEW Thread



Disclaimer: It's not possible to fully diagnose a finishing problem or the hazards of an operation via these pages. All information presented is for general reference and does not represent a professional opinion nor the policy of an author's employer. The internet is largely anonymous & unvetted; some names may be fictitious and some recommendations might be harmful.

If you are seeking a product or service related to metal finishing, please check these Directories:

Finishing
Jobshops
Capital
Equipment
Chemicals &
Consumables
Consult'g,
& Software


About/Contact  -  Privacy Policy  -  ©1995-2025 finishing.com, Pine Beach, New Jersey, USA  -  about "affil links"