No passwords, No popups, No AI, No cost:
we earn from your affiliate purchases

Home /
T.O.C.
Fun
FAQs
Good
Books
Ref.
Libr.
Adver-
tise
Help
Wanted
Current
Q&A's
Site 🔍
Search
ted_yosem
Sound technical content, curated with aloha by
Ted Mooney, P.E. RET
Pine Beach, NJ
finishing.com -- The Home Page of the Finishing Industry


  pub
  The authoritative public forum
  for Metal Finishing since 1989

-----

Electroless Nickel on Sulfamate Nickel?




2007

Hi,

We need to repair an undersize steel component that has worn 0.004" down. The repair manual calls for an Electroless Nickel finish but Electroless nickel can only be deposited usefully to a depth of 0.0025-0.003". Our plater has recommended doing a Sulfamate Nickel deposit & grind to an even 0.002" surface, followed by a 0.0025" Electroless Nickel deposit. Followed by machining to the correct dimensions.

I've never heard of using an electroless nickel on top of a sulfamate nickel before, so I'm reluctant to sign-off on this. Has anyone heard of this being done before? Or can suggest a better technique for building up the part to the correct depth?

Thanks,

Leigh Glasgow
Design Engineer - Melbourne, Victoria, Australia



Dear Leigh,

I suggest brush plating.

Kind regards,

Sjamp van Esch
Sjamp van Esch
- Eindhoven, The Netherlands
2007



First of two simultaneous responses -- 2007

Sulfamate nickel of at least 0.003 per side after post plate machining can be followed by 0.001 of EN and should not require post EN grind, unless the tolerances are very tight or the post sulfamate machining is bad or the EN plater is marginal.
I am not in love with brush plating unless it is a one or two part run.
Have you considered using Chrome?

James Watts
- Navarre, Florida



Second of two simultaneous responses -- 2007

Perhaps the plater is just trying to make his life easier. Answering your questions.
1- Fact. EN can be deposited to 0.005" and more.
2- Sulfamate nickel is suitable to plate EN on top.
3- Other alternatives include metal spraying, low energy welding, spark welding. Then machining/grinding and EN plating. In any case, validation by the writer of the specs would be required.
About brush plating which was suggested, it might be an economically attractive and perhaps valid alternative from the engineering point of view, but it would be somewhat limited by the part's geometry. Also it is not what your specs call for.

Guillermo Marrufo
Monterrey, NL, Mexico


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



(No "dead threads" here! If this page isn't currently on the Hotline your Q, A, or Comment will restore it)

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  -  ©1995-2024 finishing.com, Pine Beach, New Jersey, USA  -  about "affil links"