* * *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
02-20-2018 -- 03:56:48

Login with username, password and session length

Top 10 Posters

flew-da-coup (1295)
Hawaii596 (987)
Hoopty (545)
docbyers (544)
MIRCS (534)
griff61 (531)
Thraxas (498)
CalLabSolutions (469)
  • Total Members: 3255
  • Latest: VTIMike
  • Total Posts: 18609
  • Total Topics: 3376
  • Online Today: 69
  • Online Ever: 242
  • (04-19-2014 -- 19:20:34)
Users Online
Users: 0
Guests: 41
Total: 41

Author Topic: AMS2750 Standard  (Read 586 times)

Offline NC-Cals

  • 3-level
  • **
  • Posts: 44
  • Action Taken: +0/-0
    • Email
AMS2750 Standard
« on: 10-25-2017 -- 15:12:09 »
Do any labs out there deal with the AMS2750 standard? I have a client that requires their Fluke 744 Documenting Process Meter to be calibrated for Type J,K,T,S,R,E,N, and B thermocouples source and read with anywhere from 10 to 28 data points on each range. Clearly this is way big overkill, but they won't budge on the requirements. This is a new standard to me, so if anyone has experience with this, I'd like to know.

Offline silv3rstr3

  • 5-level
  • ***
  • Posts: 163
  • Action Taken: +2/-2
    • Email
Re: AMS2750 Standard
« Reply #1 on: 10-25-2017 -- 15:24:14 »
It's definitely annoying to know that if J, K, and T are correct the rest of the types will be good.  Seems to be big with Aerospace companies and NADCAP (National Aerospace Contractor Accreditation Program) requirements. 
"We're surrounded!  Well that simplifies the problem!!" Chesty Puller

Offline briansalomon

  • 5-level
  • ***
  • Posts: 210
  • Action Taken: +4/-1
    • Email
Re: AMS2750 Standard
« Reply #2 on: 10-28-2017 -- 11:17:32 »
Most customers will accept proof from the manufacturer's documentation when there are multiple functions that rely on  mathematical conversions but when their quality standard requires data like NADCAP does the only economical solution is to automate the calibration.


  • 7-level
  • ****
  • Posts: 830
  • Action Taken: +7/-13
Re: AMS2750 Standard
« Reply #3 on: 11-01-2017 -- 21:31:24 »
I don't see what the big deal is. Just charge them for all the extra points they want. That is generally what we do when a customer requires more than the normal data points.

Offline MIRCS

  • 7-level
  • ****
  • Posts: 534
  • Action Taken: +9/-3
    • Email
Re: AMS2750 Standard
« Reply #4 on: 11-02-2017 -- 16:14:32 »
AMS 2750 covers pyrometric requirements for heat treat furnaces, controllers, and sensing equipment.  It is really a rather LARGE PIA to deal with between the tolerances, limitations, shortened intervals and the amount of TC wire required for surveys (about 250 feet for a 96 cu/ft furnace).  I would advise you to get a copy of AMS 2750 and read it so you can better help your customer as there are many limiting factors for the use of non-noble thermocouples in the standard.

Offline NC-Cals

  • 3-level
  • **
  • Posts: 44
  • Action Taken: +0/-0
    • Email
Re: AMS2750 Standard
« Reply #5 on: 11-06-2017 -- 18:43:58 »
  I have read the standard and it requires 6 test points per TC used across the range. The big deal on this is that it takes 6 hours to complete a Fluke 744. That's a lot of wasted time for no value added. Then, work out the uncertainties on top of it. Since we don't have Met/Team, that's a lot of calculation time.
  Sometimes it's difficult to get non-calibration folks to understand how equipment works.

Offline flew-da-coup

  • 9-level
  • *****
  • Posts: 1295
  • Action Taken: +17/-24
  • Missing in Action
Re: AMS2750 Standard
« Reply #6 on: 11-10-2017 -- 11:30:36 »
I am very familiar with the standard. I know the person who wrote the standard. I explained to them that it was overkill, but engineers are retarded at times. They also require for you to list the offset for each measurement. This is stupid because it's just the difference of actual reading and nominal. Your cert will also have to say " Calibrated IAW AMS2750E". Charge them a sh!t ton for the calibration.
You shall do no injustice in judgment, in measurement of length, weight, or volume.Leviticus 19:35


DISCLAIMER:  This site is not an official US Air Force site, it is intended for private use only.  It is not endorsed, in any way, by the US Air Force, the DoD, or any other governmental agency.  Additionally, all information found within this site is just that, it is NOT meant to be used in place of authorized publications.

All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.

All forum content is the property of the respective poster, all the rest 2004-2017 by PMEL Forum.