One point that must be made clear on the QMRX2 -vs- QMSS2 product categories. As an end-product manufacturer, the purchasing agent should use QMRX2 exclusively, where ever possible. Doing so ties one into the actual company applying the coating to the specific part and, if selected on the basis of existing Recognitions for the applicator, no additional testing for the end-product manufacturer.
On the other hand, if no QMRX2 companies currently have Recognitions for the process(es)/substrate(s) needed, a review of QMSS2 process component suppliers is in order, to find out if any of the Recognized coating process manufacturers have used the desired coating(s) on the desired substrate(s). If such a combination can be found, an abbreviated test program may be possible. If not, either further inquiry is in order or a from scratch evaluation is needed, or both. The difference between QMRX2 and QMSS2 is time and money. In the absence of either, more time and more money. Regards, Peter L. Tarver Northern Telecom [email protected] ------------------------------ Hello Michael, To my recollection, UL has a Recognition program for coatings. I believe a Recognition Report would describe the coating, the application process and the allowed substrate/s. Testing of the coating on your product would consist of scratching the surface, and submitting the parts to a "shake and bake" test procedure to determine the integrity of the coating. In my experience, CSA has similar requirements. Check the 1996 UL Plastics Recognized Component Directory, Guide QMRX2, Page 689 and onward and QMSS2, Page 739 and onward for details. Regards, Art Michael, Editor
