data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/609bf/609bf7ec06bf67551c64cf7db86c75e1b2429ebb" alt="ted_yosem"
Curated with aloha by
Ted Mooney, P.E. RET
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/26e2f/26e2f7d702dd7be41aa0820ea5caf290b7b90d67" alt="finishing.com -- The Home Page of the Finishing Industry"
The authoritative public forum
for Metal Finishing 1989-2025
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/5f77c/5f77ca5bdcdc1dd640bc1c826f3906846739a5b0" alt="mfhotline"
-----
301 SS Passivated incorrectly
A subcontractor passivated 301 stainless steel parts using AMSQQP35 [canceled] 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 sulphate ⇦ this on eBay or Amazon [affil links] test, since typically, the copper sulphate 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 Hahnprocess engineer - Saint Charles, ILLINOIS
September 8, 2010
Q, A, or Comment on THIS thread -or- Start a NEW Thread