Home /
T.O.C.
FAQs
 
Good
Books
Ref.
Libr.
Advertise
Here
Help
Wanted
Current
Q&A's
Search 🔍
the Site
pub Where the world gathers for
plating, anodizing, & finishing Q&As since 1989







-----

301 SS Passivated incorrectly



September 8, 2010

A subcontractor passivated 301 stainless steel parts using AMSQQP35 [canceled, affil. link] Type VIII instead of Type VI or VII. The parts showed rust in the bend radius, indicating ineffective cleaning and passivation, where I would expect it. 1. I've always have had an issue with the copper sulfate test, since typically, the copper sulfate solution is only applied to a small spot, likely a "flat" surface, and least likely to be an area with smeared iron. 2. Most importantly, I haven't a readily available published resource. Is there likely to be metallurgical attack of the 301 from Type VIII time-temperature-chemistry?

Douglas Hahn
process engineer - Saint Charles, ILLINOIS


none
finishing.com is made possible by ...
this text gets replaced with bannerText
spacer gets replaced with bannerImages

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:

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


About/Contact    -    Privacy Policy    -    ©1995-2023 finishing.com, Pine Beach, New Jersey, USA