Renowned for its dynamic trade show environment, FNA 2024 brings together the foremost experts, suppliers, decision makers, and buyers from around the globe. This year’s event is set to continue the tradition of offering an engaging technical conference alongside the bustling trade show floor.
The excitement takes off on the first day of the trade show with a unique gaming opportunity. During the Day 1 Trade Show Floor Reception, one lucky attendee will be selected to participate in a thrilling game at the heart of the expo, standing a chance to win $500, $1,000, or a staggering $100,000!
With exhibit booths in high demand and an anticipated sellout, prospective exhibitors are urged not to hesitate in securing their spots. Registration for attendees will open on May 1, 2024.
Mark your calendars and prepare to be a part of the industry’s most awaited event. Stay tuned for more details and visit www.FurnacesNorthAmerica.com for the latest updates.
Furnaces North America 2024 is excited to unveil its lineup of Title Sponsors for the upcoming trade show and technical conference, scheduled for October 14-16, 2024. Produced by the Metal Treating Institute in collaboration with Heat Treat Today, the event will be hosted in Columbus, OH — a hub of manufacturing innovation.
Where did the ±0.1°F AMS2750 requirement come from and how should heat treaters approach this specification, an important change that entails major buy-in? Andrew Bassett, president and owner of Aerospace Testing and Pyrometry, was at the AMS2750F meeting. He shares the inside scoop on this topic with Heat Treat Today and what he expects for the future of this standard.
Heat Treat Radio podcast host and Heat Treat Today publisher, Doug Glenn, has written a column on the topic, which you can find here; read it to understand some of the background, questions, and concerns that cloud this issue.
Below, you can watch the video, listen to the podcast by clicking on the audio play button, or read an edited transcript.
The following transcript has been edited for your reading enjoyment.
Doug Glenn: Andrew Bassett, president and owner of Aerospace Testing and Pyrometry, Inc., somewhere in eastern Pennsylvania. We don’t know because you’re on the move! What is your new address, now, by the way?
Contact us with your Reader Feedback
Andrew Bassett: We are in Easton, Pennsylvania at 2020 Dayton Drive.
Doug Glenn: Andrew, we want to talk a bit about this ±0.1°F debate that is going on. It was actually precipitated by the column that I wrote that is in the February issue.
I just wanted to talk about that debate, and I know that you’ve been somewhat involved with it. So, if you don’t mind, could you give our listeners a quick background on what we are talking about, this ±0.1°F debate.
Andrew Bassett: To be honest with you, being part of the AMS2750 sub team, one of the questions came up for us during the Rev F rewrite was this 0.1°F readability — wanting to kind of fix this flaw that’s been in the standard ever since the day that AMS2750 came out. With instrumentation, for instance, you have ±2°F (the equivalent would be 1.1°C). At 1.1°C, the question became, If your instrumentation does not show this 0.1 of a degree readability, how can you show compliance to the standards?
Andrew Bassett President Aerospace Testing and Pyrometry Source: DELTA H
Then, it morphed into other issues that we’ve had in the previous revisions where we talk about precise temperature requirements, like for system accuracy testing: You’re allowed a hard number ±3° per Class 2 furnace or 0.3% of reading, whichever is greater. Now, we have this percentage. With anything over 1000°F, you're going to be able to use the percentage of reading to help bring your test into tolerance. In that example, 1100°F, you’re about 3.3 degrees. If your instrumentation doesn’t show this readability, how are you going to prove compliance?
That’s what it all morphed into. Originally, the first draft that we proposed in AMS2750F was that all instrumentation had to have 0.1°F readability. We got some feedback (I don’t know if I want to say “feedback” or "pitchforks and hammers") that this would be cost-prohibitive; most instrumentation doesn't have that readability, and it would be really costly to go out and try to do this. We understood that. But, at the end of the day, we said: The recording device is your permanent record, and so that’s what we’re going to lean on. But we still had a lot of pushback.
We ended up putting a poll out to AMEC and the heat treating industry to see what their opinions were. We said that with the 0.1 readability (when it came to a percentage reading), recording devices would read hard tolerances. So, for instance, an SAT read at 3° would be just that, not "or .3% of reading."
There was a third option that we had put out to the community at large, and it came back as the 0.1° readability for digital recorders, so that’s where we ran with the 0.1° readability.
When it was that big of an issue, we didn’t make the decisions ourselves; we wanted to put it out to the rest of the community. My guess is not everyone really thought the whole thing through yet. Now people are like, ok, well now I need to get this 0.1° readability.
Again, during the meetings, we heard the issues. Is 0.1° going to really make a difference to metal? If you have a load thermocouple that goes in your furnace and it reads 0.1° over the tolerance, does it fail the load? Well, no, metallurgically, we all know that’s not going to happen, but there’s got to be a line in the sand somewhere, so it was drawn at that.
"...that hard line in the sand had to be drawn somewhere..." Source: Unsplash.com/Willian Justen de Vasconcellos
That’s a little bit of the background of the 0.1° readability.
Doug Glenn: So, basically, we’re in a situation, now, where people are, in fact (and correct me if I’m wrong here), potentially going to fail SATs or tests on their system because of a 0.1° reading, correct? I mean, it is possible, correct?
Andrew Bassett: Yes. So, when the 0.1° readability came out in Rev F, we gave it a two-year moratorium that with that requirement, you still had two more years. Then, when Rev G came out, exactly two years to the date, we still had a lot of customers coming to us, or a lot of suppliers coming back to us, and saying, “Hey, look, there’s a supply shortage on these types of recorders. We need to buy some time on this.” It ranged from another year to 10 years, and we’re like — whoa, whoa, whoa! You told us, coming down the pike before, maybe you pushed it down the road, whatever, probably Covid put a damper on a lot of people, so we added another year.
So, as of June 30th of 2023, that requirement is going to come into full play now. Like it or not, that’s where the standard sits.
Doug Glenn: So, you’re saying June 30th, 2023?
Andrew Bassett: Yes.
Doug Glenn Alright, that’s good background.
I guess there were several issues that I raised. First off, you’ve already hit on one. I understand the ability to be precise, but in most heat treatment applications, one degree is not going to make a difference, right? So, why do we push for a 0.1° when 1° isn’t even going to make a difference?
Andrew Bassett: We know that, and it’s been discussed that way. But, again, that hard line in the sand had to be drawn somewhere, and that was the direction the community wanted to go with, so we went with that. Yes, we understand that in some metals, 10 degrees is not going to make a difference, but we need to have some sort of line in the sand and that's what was drawn.
Doug Glenn: So, a Class 1. I was thinking the lower number was a tighter furnace. So, a Class 1 (±5), and you’re saying, that’s all the furnace is classified for, right, ±5? So, if you get a reading of 1000°, it could be 1005° or it could be 995°. Then, you’re putting on top of that the whole idea that your temperature reading has got to be down to 0.1°. There just seems to be some disconnect there.
So, that was the first one. You also mentioned the instrumentation. It’s been pointed out to me, by some of the instrumentation people, that their instruments are actually only reading four digits. So up to 99.9 you actually have a point, but if it goes to 1000°, you’re out of digits; you can’t even read that. I mean, they can’t even read that down to a point.
"So, if you get a reading of 1000°, it could be 1005° or it could be 995°." Source: Unsplash.com/Getty Images
Andrew Bassett: Correct. On the recording side of things, we went away from analog instrumentation. The old chart papers, that’s all gone, and we required the digital recorders with that 0.1° readability, as of June 30th of this year.
Again, the first draft was all instrumentation. That would be your controllers, your overtemps, and we know that limitation. But everyone does have to be aware of it. We still allow for this calibration of ±2 or 0.2%. If you’re doing a calibration, let’s say, on a temperature control on a calibration point at 1600° and the instrument only reads whole numbers, you can use the percentage, but you would have to round it inward. Let’s use 1800°, that would be an easier way to do it. So, I’m allowed ±2 or 3.6° if I’m using the percentage of reading, but if the instrument does not read in decimal points for a controller or overtemp, you would have to round that down to ±3°.
Doug Glenn: ±3, right; the 0.6° is out the window.
Andrew Bassett: Correct. I shouldn’t say we like to bury things in footnotes, but this was an afterthought. In one of the footnotes, in one of the tables, it talks about instrumentation calibration that people need to be aware of.
Doug Glenn: Let’s just do this because I think we’ve got a good sense of what the situation is, currently. Would you care to prognosticate about the future? Do you think this is going to stand? Do you think it will be changed? What do you think? I realize you’re speaking for yourself, here.
Andrew Bassett: I’m conflicted on both sides. I want to help the supply base with this issue but I’m also on the standards committee that writes the standard. I think because we’re so far down the road, right now — this requirement has been out there since June 2022 — I don’t see anything being rolled back on it, at this point. I think if we did roll it back, we have to look at it both ways.
If we did roll this back and say alright, let’s just do away with this 0.1° readability issue, we still have to worry about the people processing in Celsius. Remember, we’re pretty much the only country in the world that processes in Fahrenheit. The rest of the world has been, probably, following these lines all along. If we rolled this back, just think about all the people that made that investment and moved forward on the 0.1° readability and they come back and say, “Wait a minute. We just spent a $100,000 on upgrading our systems and now you’re rolling it back, that’s not fair to us.”
At this point, with the ball already rolling, it would be very interesting to see when Nadcap starts publishing out the audit findings when it comes to the pyrometry and this 0.1° readability to see how many suppliers are being hit on this requirement and that would give us a good indication. If there are a lot of yeses on it then, obviously, a lot of suppliers haven’t gone down this road. My guess is, for the most part, anybody that’s Nadcap accredited in heat treating — and this goes across chemical processing, coatings, and a few other commodities — I think has caught up to this.
Personally, I don’t think this is going to go away; it’s not going to disappear. It’s going to keep going down this road. Maybe, if people are still struggling with getting the types of devices that can have that 0.1° readability, then maybe another year extension on it, but I don’t know where that is right now. I haven’t gotten enough feedback from aerospace customers that say, "Hey, I can’t get the recorder." I mean,
Doug Glenn: I just don’t understand, Andrew, how it’s even physically possible that companies can record something as accurately as 0.1° if the assembly or thermocouple wire is rated at ±2°? How is that even possible that you can want somebody to be accurate down to ±0.1° when the thing is only accurate up to ±2°?
Andrew Bassett: Right, I get that. We can even go a lot further with that and start talking about budgets of uncertainty. If you look at any reputable thermocouple manufacturer or instrument calibration reports that are ISO 17025, they have to list out their measurements of uncertainty, and that gives you only the 98% competence you’re going to be within that accuracy statement.
Yes, I get the whole issue of this .1° readability. There were good intentions were to fix a flaw, and it spiraled. We’ve seen where PLCs and some of these high logic controllers now can show the .1° readability, but they automatically round up at .5°. Are you now violating the other requirements of rounding to E29? Now, I think we’ve closed out the poll in the standard, but you’re right. We were trying to do the right thing. Personally, I don’t think we gave it all that much further thought on that except hey, let’s just make recorders this way and this should be okay.
Doug Glenn: Right. No, that’s good. Let me be clear, and I think most everybody that was involved with the standards are excellent people and they’re trying to do the right thing. There is no dissing on anybody that was doing it. I’m not a furnace guy, right, I’m a publisher — but when I look at it, I’m going: okay, you’re asking somebody to be as accurate as 0.1° on equipment that can only do ±2°. That’s a 4° swing and you’re asking them to be within 0.1°, basically.
Andrew, this has been helpful. It’s been good hearing from you because you’re on the frontline here. You’ve got one foot firmly planted in both camps.
Andrew Bassett: I’m doing my best to stay neutral with it all.
Doug Glenn: Anyhow, I appreciate it, Andrew. You’re a gentleman. Thanks for taking some time with us.
Andrew Bassett: Thanks, Doug. Appreciate it.
About the expert: Andrew Bassett has more than 25 years of experience in the field of calibrations, temperature uniformity surveys, system accuracy testing, as well an expertise in pressure, humidity, and vacuum measurement calibration. Prior to founding Aerospace Testing & Pyrometry, Andrew previously held positions as Vice President of Pyrometry Services and Director of Pyrometry Services for a large commercial heat treater and Vice President and Quality Control Manager for a small family owned business.
A heat treat system for use in the aerospace and defense industry was recently delivered to Tinker AFB, OK - USAF. The system is certified to AMS2750G and will be used to heat treat aluminum as well as other metals for use on military aircraft.
Richard B. Conway Founder/Director/ CTO DELTA H® Technologies, LLC Source: DELTA H
DELTA H® and Phillips Federal delivered the furnace to Tinker AFB, which will be used for for heat treating aviation grade aluminum for military purposes. Third party services for calibration and qualification were performed by Andrew Bassett, president of Aerospace Testing and Pyrometry. The certifications for instrumentation, temperature uniformity surveys, and system accuracy testing were completed through ATP’s new Aerospace Compliance Software (ASC) to AMS2750G.
The Dual Chamber Aerospace Heat Treat (DCAHT ®) system has a certified TUS volume of 24” wide, 16" high, 72" long. In addition to aluminum, the system can be used for PH stainless steel aging, as well as titanium and ferrous alloy processes. Training was provided to several operators, QC personnel, and two “Trainers” qualified to train other operators.
“As an USAF veteran," commented Richard B. Conway, founder, director, and CTO of DELTA H. "[I]t is a deep honor to do all we possibly can to assure that our Warfighters have the finest heat treating equipment available for defending our nation."
Find heat treating products and services when you search on Heat Treat Buyers Guide.com
Twice a month, Heat TreatToday publishes an episode of Heat TreatRadio, a unique-to-the-industry podcast. Whether it’s AMS2750 or CQI-9, these episodes will boost your knowledge about all things heat treat. Listen to these four episodes to gain confidence in compliance. Enjoy this original content, and happy listening!
Justin Rydzewski Director of Sales & Market Development Controls Service, Inc.
Heat TreatRadio: Justin Rydzewski on CQI-9 Rev.4 (Part 1 of 4) – Pyrometry
In this episode of Heat TreatRadio, hear directly from a committee member involved in updating CQI-9. Justin Rydzewski, director of Sales and Marketing at Controls Service, Inc. sheds some light on the automotive equivalent to AMS2750: CQI-9. From translation issues and formatting to new process tables and caveats regarding thermocouples, this episode of Heat TreatRadio provides all the necessary information heat treaters need to use the new revision. It's about more than just pyrometry; it's also about heat treat system assessment and heat treat operation.
To get the run-down on CQI-9, listen to this episode of Heat TreatRadio.
"How like is one test to the next one? What is your means of collecting data and what is your response plan when that data is unfavorable? Having that predetermined, so that you’re not doing in on the fly, can be incredibly helpful."
Heat TreatRadio: Andrew Bassett on AMS2750F (Part 1 of 3)
Andrew Bassett, President, Aerospace Testing and Pyrometry
In this three-part episode, Andrew Bassett of Aerospace Testing and Pyrometry discusses all things AMS2750F. Questions on thermocouples, calibrations and thermal processing classification, SATs, or TUSs? This series of Heat TreatRadio episodes has the answers.
In this first episode, Andrew focuses on thermocouples and sensors and the different thermocouple types that AM2750 Revision F addresses compared to past revisions. The use of nickel/nickel-moly thermocouples and the use of resistant temperature devices are just two of the additions found in Rev. F.
To get an overview of the changes to AMS2750 made in Revision F, as well as to hear a bit about the process for writing the specification book, listen to this series of episodes on Heat TreatRadio.
"I’m an end-user, so I’m able give my input and say, 'Hey, this doesn’t make sense. What you want to add into the spec is not real world.' It’s nice that people such as us get involved with these specifications."
Heat TreatRadio: Reimagining Furnace Compliance with C3 Data’s Matt Wright
Matt Wright Chief Marketing Officer, C3 Data Source: C3 Data
The future of compliance could be in the palm of your hand. Matt Wright, chief marketing officer at C3 Data, describes how C3 Data has encapsulated everything required to be AMS2750 or CQI-9 compliant into one platform: a user-friendly system that can run on a smart phone. No more clipboards, spreadsheets, or post-it notes. Using optical character recognition, heat treaters can complete SATs in real-time. With QR codes, operators can scan thermocouples and access the appropriate table within a specification book.
To learn more about what C3 Data is doing to make compliance easier, listen to this episode of Heat TreatRadio.
"When I look at our industry, one of the things that is the biggest challenge is the flow of information — getting information from where it resides to where it needs to be in the format that it needs to be."
Heat TreatRadio: Justin Rydzewski and James Hawthorne on CQI-9 Rev.4 (Part 3 of 4) – Process Tables & New Resources
James Hawthorne Corporate Heat Treat Specialist, Acument Global Technologies
There's more new material in CQI-9 Rev. 4 than just pyrometry updates. James Hawthorne of Acument Global Technologies, zooms in on changes to CQI-9's process tables and new resources. One of these new resources, a glossary of terms used within the document, was created specifically because of end-user requests. Maintenance request forms, helpful illustrations, and informative figures are just a few other new resources added to the latest version of CQI-9.
"Read the document. Read as much of it as you can and try to understand as much as you possibly can."
To hear more about what's new in CQI-9 Rev.4, listen to this episode of Heat TreatRadio.
Have you ever wondered how to create or revise AMS specifications? In this original Heat Treat Today Technical Tuesday feature, come along with Andrew Bassett, president of Aerospace Testing and Pyrometry and an expert in aerospace pyrometry specifications, as he shares his experience and knowledge in the process.
Andrew Bassett, President, Aerospace Testing and Pyrometry
Author’s Note: These comments are the non-binding opinion of the author and do not constitute an interpretation by SAE. Such opinions do not replace the need to ensure agreement between the supplier, customer, and cognizant engineering organization.
Those who are familiar with aerospace heat treating are accustomed to Aerospace Material Specifications (AMS) that guide heat treaters on how to process parts and raw materials. These specifications will mandate equipment requirements, atmospheres to be used, cleaning methods, soaking times and temperatures, and testing requirements, to name a few. The working committee, Aerospace Metals Engineering Committee (AMEC), is in charge of revising these specifications, which is required every five years. This is a long and sometimes tedious process of revising specifications with many knowledgeable experts involved.
There are various types of specifications that have been established by the SAE Technical Standards Board:
Aerospace Material Specifications (AMS)
These technical reports contain specific performance requirements and are used for material and process specifications conforming to sound established engineering and metallurgical practices in aerospace sciences and practices.
Aerospace Standards (AS)
These technical reports contain specific performance requirements and are used for design standards, parts standards, minimum performance standards, quality, and other areas conforming to broadly accepted engineering practices or specifications for a material, product, process, procedure, or test method.
Aerospace Recommended Practice (ARP)
These aerospace technical reports are documentations of practice, procedures, and technology that are intended as guides to standard engineering practices. Their content may be more general in nature, or they may offer data that has not yet gained broad acceptance.
Aerospace Information Report (AIR)
These aerospace technical reports are compilations of engineering reference data, historical information, or educational material useful to the technical community.
To create or revise an Aerospace Specification, a “sponsor” of the specification will request to either create a new or revise an existing standard with the approval of the chairperson. Once the approval has been granted, the sponsor will work to create and/or revise the existing document. When the draft document is complete, the draft is balloted for a 28 Day Ballot. Members of AMEC can make comments on the ballot with either a “T” comment or an “I” comment. The “T” comment is a technical error, missing requirement, or improper requirement that needs action by the committee. All technical comments should be accompanied by a reason for the comment and a suggested improvement to resolve the issue. The “I” comment is a non-technical correction. These may include spelling and grammatical mistakes, incorrect paragraph numbering, and the like. Each “T” comment must be discussed and voted on by the committee members and approved or disapproved. During the ballot process, members are asked to “Approve” or “Disapprove” the ballot. This process goes on until no more changes are required to the draft before the document is sent to the appropriate commodity committees.
The illustration (Figure 1) describes the creation/revision process for given specifications.
The projects for the revisions to AMS-2759 series of specifications started in 2009/2010 with many of the draft revisions waiting in “parking lots” until all the specifications were completed. Since their release in 2018, several of these specifications had to be revised again due to missing or omitted requirements or small changes to clarify issues.
Over the last eighteen months, the heat treat industry has experienced new revisions to the following specifications (revision dates):
AMS-2759 Rev G Heat Treatment of Steel Parts General Requirements (04-23-19)
AMS-2759/1 Rev H Heat Treatment of Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Parts Minimum Tensile Strength Below 220 ksi (1517MPa) (09-19-19)
AMS-2759/2 Rev J Heat Treatment of Low Alloy Steel Parts Minimum Tensile Strength 220 ksi (1517MPa) and Higher (07-15-19)
AMS-2759/3 Rev H Heat Treatment Precipitation-Hardening Corrosion-Resistant, Maraging and Secondary Hardening Steel Parts (01/07/19)
AMS-2759/4 Rev D Heat Treatment Austenitic Corrosion-Resistant Steel Parts (04-28-18)
AMS-2759/5 Rev E Heat Treatment Martensitic Corrosion-Resistant Steel Parts (04-28-18)
AMS-2759/6 Rev C Gas Nitriding of Low Alloy Steel Parts (06-11-18)
AMS-2759/7 Rev D Carburizing and Heat Treatment of Carburizing Grade Steel Parts (04-15-19)
AMS-2759/8 Rev B Ion Nitriding (06-11-18)
AMS-2759/9 Rev E Hydrogen Embrittlement Relief (Baking) of Steel Parts (10-18-18)
AMS-2759/10 Rev B Automated Gaseous Nitriding Controlled by Nitriding Potential (06-11-18)
AMS-2759/11 Rev A Stress Relief of Steel Parts (04-28-18)
AMS-2759/12 Rev B Automated Gaseous Nitrocarburizing Controlled by Potentials (07-02-18)
AMS-2759/13 Gaseous Nitrocarburizing (06-11-18)
AMS-2769 Rev C Heat Treatment of Parts in Vacuum (07-12-19)
AMS-2770 Rev P Heat Treatment of Wrought Aluminum Alloy Parts (04-08-19)
ARP-1962 Rev B Training and Approval of Heat Treating Personnel (06-11-19)
ARP-7446 Vacuum Gauge Calibration (03-06-19) New ARP
There are several more projects underway that include the revision of AMS-H-6875, Heat Treatment of Steel Raw Materials that will become a four-digit AMS Specification, AMS-2774, Heat Treatment Wrought Nickel Alloy and Cobalt Alloy Parts, AMS-2801, Heat Treatment of Titanium Alloy Parts and AMS-2750, Pyrometry, to name a few. As new technology emerges, such as additive manufactured metal parts, AMS standards will need to be revised or created to address the thermal processing of these parts.
AMS-2750 (Pyrometry) is one of the more contentious specifications, which is currently under revision, because it is the main specification for the testing of thermal processing equipment. This specification not only has an effect on commercial heat treaters working in aerospace, but this specification has been adopted in chemical processing/coatings for baking/drying ovens, composites for curing and bonding laminates, and as of January 28, 2018, the FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health has added this standard to its list of recognized consensus standards database. For those who are heat treating medical devices such as needles, heart wires, titanium staples, and metallic joint replacements, AMS-2750 is now governing how the thermal processing equipment will be tested.
When I first became involved with AMEC in June 2008, the AMS-2750D (Pyrometry) was starting to be revised to AMS-2750E. I attended my first meeting in Niagara Falls, New York, with the expectation that I would be working only with a group of aerospace primes who write these standards. As it turned out, many of the members at AMEC are end users, such as captive and commercial heat treaters who are experts in the specifications in which they are involved. Since being in the field of pyrometry, I thought I would volunteer my time and expertise on the revision of AMS-2750. The sub-team group consisted of experts from Boeing, Honeywell, Carpenter Technology, Alcoa, Performance Review Institute (PRI), and Bodycote Thermal Processing with each team member bringing to the table his/her own knowledge and expertise in pyrometry. The process of revising this specification took four years to complete with numerous team meetings to discuss and propose changes to better clarify the previous revision. The final revision was finally published in July of 2012. Since then, I have been involved with other specifications such as AMS-2769 (Heat Treatment of Parts in a Vacuum), ARP-7446 (Vacuum Gauge Calibration), and the next revision of AMS-2750F.
Getting involved with AMEC and the various commodity groups is rewarding as it allows you to have a voice in the specifications that affect your business. You work with other members in the heat treat community to develop and create specification to enhance the industry, better the process, and continually strive to deliver quality parts or materials.
About the Author: Andrew Bassett is the president of Aerospace Testing and Pyrometry and is an expert in aerospace pyrometry specifications. He has 25 years of experience in the calibration and testing of thermal processing equipment. This article originally appeared in Heat Treat Today’s March 2020 Aerospace print edition.
The Class of 2019 40 Under 40, revealed online on October 4, was featured at the Heat TreatTodaybooth at the Heat Treat Show in Detroit, Michigan. Here is a group photo of most of those still present on the last day:
Matt Watts (Ultra Electronics Energy), Mike Harrison (Gasbarre), Ben Gasbarre (Gasbarre), Tom Zimmerman (ATP), Chris Davidson (SSi), Neal Conway (Delta H), Brandon Sheldon (Plibrico), Kyle Hummel (Contour), Sergio Cantu (Quaker Houghton), Uwe Rahn (Rubig), Justin Dzik (Fives)
