Read 34 grade as a quote/spec decision, not just a grade name
The clearest public data ties 34 grade to EEC 2:17-34, a high-energy sintered Sm2Co17 value set with BHmax 34 MGOe typical and 32 MGOe minimum.
[R1][R3] Reviewed 2026-06-17
Check a supplier quote against public 34 grade Sm2Co17 evidence, then turn the gaps into RFQ language.
Published: 2026-06-17 · Last reviewed: 2026-06-17
Enter the supplier values and operating conditions. The checker compares them with public 34 grade Sm2Co17 screening data, exposes evidence gaps, and turns the result into an RFQ next step.
This page is intentionally different from the applications and characteristics pages: it starts from a supplier quote and asks whether the evidence is strong enough to proceed.
The clearest public data ties 34 grade to EEC 2:17-34, a high-energy sintered Sm2Co17 value set with BHmax 34 MGOe typical and 32 MGOe minimum.
[R1][R3] Reviewed 2026-06-17
Typical BHmax and Br help screening, but procurement control needs guaranteed minimums, Hcb/Hcj, temperature coefficient, and demagnetization curves at the intended operating temperature.
[R1][R6] Reviewed 2026-06-17
Public EEC documents show a 250 C versus 300 C difference for 2:17-34 references, and the technical brief ties hot operation to magnetic-circuit design. Treat maximum temperature as supplier-revision evidence, not a universal promise.
[R1][R2][R3] Reviewed 2026-06-17
One EEC technical brief example shows 2:17-34 BHmax dropping from about 33.25 MGOe at 25 C to 27.88 MGOe at 200 C and 26.12 MGOe around 240-250 C.
[R3] Reviewed 2026-06-17
Nearby public paths include Arnold RECOMA 33E/35E and Goudsmit S32 or contact-for-other-grade workflows. Equivalent-grade acceptance requires BHmax, Br, Hcb, Hcj, coefficient, temperature, and curve comparison.
[R4][R5] Reviewed 2026-06-17
Geometry, coating/media exposure, origin, lot traceability, ASTM test expectations, and DFARS clauses can invalidate a technically promising magnet if they are checked after sampling.
[R6][R7][R8][R9] Reviewed 2026-06-17
This audit found that the first version already had a working checker and source table, but several decision-impacting claims needed stronger evidence translation. Updated: 2026-06-17.
| Gap found | Research finding | Buyer impact | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Temperature ceiling was visible but not decision-ready | EEC public sources agree on the 34/32 MGOe and 11.9/11.7 kG value set, but not on the same maximum-temperature presentation. The dedicated 34 grade sell sheet lists 300 C, the general SmCo sell sheet lists 250 C for EEC 2:17-34, and the technical brief says operation up to 300 C depends on magnetic-circuit design. | A 300 C quote should trigger current-revision, load-line, dwell, geometry, and demagnetization-curve proof instead of automatic approval. | [R1][R2][R3] |
| High-temperature derating needed a numeric example | The EEC technical brief shows 2:17-34 declining from about 33.25 MGOe at 25 C to 27.88 MGOe at 200 C and 26.12 MGOe at 240-250 C, while Hci drops from >18 kOe to 10.74 kOe and then 8.16 kOe. | Room-temperature BHmax is not enough for motors, actuators, or loaded circuits; temperature-specific curves become a release gate. | [R3] |
| Supplier equivalence needed a stronger counterexample | Arnold RECOMA 35E publishes a nearby high-energy Sm2Co17 table with 33.3 MGOe typical / 32 MGOe minimum, 11.9 kG typical / 11.7 kG minimum Br, 23/21 kOe Hcj, and a 350 C maximum recommended use temperature. | A nearby grade can be technically attractive but still is not automatically equivalent to EEC 2:17-34; substitution must be property-by-property. | [R4] |
| Standards and compliance were listed but not operationalized | ASTM A1102 defines sintered SmCo scope and points demagnetization-curve work to A977/A977M. DFARS 252.225-7052 is more than a label check: through 2026 it reaches melting and subsequent magnet production; from 2027-01-01 it reaches the SmCo supply chain from ore or feedstock through finished magnets for covered contracts. | Regulated programs should request origin, process location, lot traceability, and curve/test-method evidence before sample approval. | [R6][R9][R10] |
| Commercial benchmarks were not publicly supportable | No reliable public 34-grade-specific price, MOQ, or lead-time benchmark was found that is stable enough for procurement planning. | Treat price, MOQ, and schedule as RFQ outputs tied to date, shape, tolerance, origin, documentation, and quantity, not as static public facts. | [U1] |
These values establish a practical screen. They do not approve a supplier, shape, magnetization direction, coating, or production lot.
Public BHmax screen
34 / 32
MGOe typ/min
A high-energy Sm2Co17 signal; not a direct pull-force guarantee.
Public Br screen
11.9 / 11.7
kG typ/min
A flux-density anchor for circuit modeling and supplier comparison.
Public Hcj screen
18
kOe min
A demagnetization-resistance floor, not a substitute for load-line curves.
Public temp screen
250-300
C
A documented conflict; confirm current revision and geometry assumptions.
Hot-service derating
33.25 -> 26.12
MGOe at 25 C to 240-250 C
A technical-brief example showing why curves matter before hot service approval.
| Temperature point | Br example | Hci example | BHmax example | Decision use |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 25 C | 11.81 kG | >18 kOe | 33.25 MGOe | Baseline room-temperature screen; still not enough for hot service approval. |
| 200 C | 10.95 kG | 10.74 kOe | 27.88 MGOe | Shows why the checker asks for duty temperature and reverse-field exposure. |
| 240-250 C | 10.63 kG | 8.16 kOe | 26.12 MGOe | If the design depends on high reverse-field margin near this range, supplier curves are mandatory. |
A strong 34 grade page should not create false certainty. These gates separate public facts from supplier-specific proof.
| Gate | Pass signal | Fail signal | Buyer action | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grade identity | Supplier states Sm2Co17 / 2:17 family and provides a current 34 grade table. | Quote only says "34 grade SmCo" without alloy family or datasheet revision. | Ask for alloy family, grade name, revision date, and whether values are typical or minimum. | [R1][R3] |
| Magnetic property window | BHmax, Br, Hcb, Hcj, and Br temperature coefficient are listed with units and basis. | Only BHmax is quoted, or values mix typical and minimum data without disclosure. | Require one side-by-side table using consistent units and basis. | [R1][R2][R3] |
| Thermal and reverse-field proof | Demagnetization curves are available at the intended temperature and magnetization direction. | 300 C is quoted as a blanket approval without curve or load-line context. | Request irreversible-loss assumptions, dwell profile, and operating-point curves. | [R1][R6] |
| Geometry and process control | Drawing, thinnest section, edge requirements, coating/media exposure, and inspection plan are reviewed before samples. | Material is selected before thin sections, chipping risk, or coating need are reviewed. | Add geometry and handling gates to the RFQ before sample release. | [P1] |
| Sourcing and compliance | Origin, lot traceability, test standard expectation, and defense clause relevance are confirmed. | Procurement assumes any technically correct SmCo quote is acceptable. | Screen DOE/USGS material exposure and DFARS 252.225-7052 applicability early. | [R7][R8][R10] |
| Decision question | Status | Usable fact | Boundary / action | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Does public evidence support a 34 grade Sm2Co17 value set? | Supported for EEC 2:17-34 | EEC public sheets and technical brief identify 2:17-34 with BHmax 34 MGOe typical and 32 MGOe minimum. | This supports screening. It does not prove every supplier label called 34 grade is equivalent. | [R1][R2][R3] |
| Is 300 C always correct for 34 grade SmCo? | Conflicting public data | EEC dedicated 34 grade and technical brief sources support a 300 C reference; the general EEC SmCo sheet lists 250 C for EEC 2:17-34. | Ask for current revision, geometry assumptions, and irreversible-loss evidence near the limit. | [R1][R2][R3] |
| Can ASTM A1102 replace supplier curves? | No | ASTM A1102 covers sintered SmCo families and public summaries point to ASTM A977/A977M for demagnetization-curve characterization. | Use standards as RFQ language and acceptance-method context, not as free grade-by-grade curve data. | [R6] |
| Are price, MOQ, and lead time public enough to benchmark? | Public evidence insufficient | No stable public benchmark was found for 34 grade price, MOQ, or lead time that is specific enough for procurement planning. | Resolve by RFQ with date, origin, shape, tolerance, coating, documentation, and quantity. | [U1] |
| Does critical-material context change the material decision? | Relevant but program-specific | Cobalt appears in DOE critical-material context; cobalt and samarium appear in the 2025 USGS critical-minerals list. | This is not a ban by itself. It is a supply-chain review trigger for regulated or continuity-sensitive programs. | [R7][R8] |
The conflict below is not a reason to discard public EEC evidence. It is the reason the RFQ must ask for a current datasheet and curve package instead of treating one card or PDF as universal.
| Public source | BHmax | Br | Hcj / iHc | Coefficient | Temperature | Buyer use | Ref |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dedicated EEC 34 Grade SmCo sell sheet | 34 typ / 32 min MGOe | 11.9 typ / 11.7 min kG | 18 kOe minimum | Br RTC -0.035%/C; Hcj coefficient -0.25%/C | 300 C typical maximum operating temperature | Good 34 grade anchor, but the notes say properties may vary with part geometry and weight. | [R1] |
| EEC general SmCo sell sheet | 34 typ / 32 min MGOe | 11.9 typ / 11.7 min kG | 18 kOe minimum | Br RTC -0.040%/C | 250 C typical maximum operating temperature | Use as a conservative conflict check; do not erase it when a separate 300 C sheet is available. | [R2] |
| EEC technical brief | 34 typ / 32 min MGOe | 11.9 typ / 11.7 min kG | 20 typ / 18 min kOe | Br RTC -0.040%/C | 300 C typical, with design dependence stated | Useful for thermal-derating context because it also gives high-temperature value examples. | [R3] |
| EEC indexed product cards | 34 MGOe shown | Not enough indexed detail for full table | Hc 11.1 kOe shown in snippets | N/A in indexed card | Indexed snippets surface both 250 C and 300 C cards | Treat website cards as navigation aids only; require the current datasheet revision in the RFQ. | [R1][R2][R3] |
Most bad 34 grade decisions come from stretching a valid technical term beyond its evidence. Use these boundaries in RFQ notes and supplier substitution reviews.
| Concept | Means | Does not mean | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
| 34 grade | A high-energy Sm2Co17 value set around 34 MGOe typical maximum energy product. | A universal pull-force rating, universal supplier equivalence, or automatic 300 C approval. | Quote by property window, value basis, curve package, and revision date. |
| Maximum operating temperature | A supplier reference that depends on load line, geometry, environment, and irreversible-loss tolerance. | Curie temperature, safe continuous duty for every shape, or proof under reverse field. | Separate continuous temperature, peak dwell, cycle count, and demagnetization curves. |
| Hcj / iHc | A useful room-temperature demagnetization-resistance screen. | Guaranteed survival at high temperature or under the actual circuit load line. | Ask for curves at the operating temperature and magnetization direction. |
| DFARS compliant | Potentially relevant sourcing/process evidence for covered U.S. defense acquisitions. | A universal legal conclusion for every buyer, subcontract, or production date. | Confirm clause flowdown, country/process evidence, and the 2027 supply-chain expansion. |
| Equivalent grade | A substitute that clears the same magnetic, thermal, geometry, documentation, and compliance gates. | A grade whose name or BHmax is merely close. | Build a side-by-side table with BHmax, Br, Hcb, Hcj, RTC, max temperature, and curve evidence. |
The method keeps the tool and report aligned: verify the public value set, add the operating context, and force every failure mode into a supplier evidence request.
1. Identify the grade family
Confirm whether the quote is Sm2Co17 / 2:17 and whether the grade table is current.
[R1][R3]
2. Normalize the property table
Compare BHmax, Br, Hcb, Hcj, coefficient, maximum temperature, units, and typical/minimum basis.
[R1][R2][R3]
3. Add duty conditions
Map temperature, peak dwell, reverse field, magnetization direction, and thinnest section onto the quote.
[R6][P1]
4. Request proof at the failure mode
Use demagnetization curves, irreversible-loss evidence, coating/media review, or inspection gates depending on the risk.
[R6][P1]
5. Compare fallback paths
Check whether 32 MGOe Sm2Co17, 35E-equivalent SmCo, SmCo5, or high-temperature NdFeB is more practical.
[R4][R5][P2]
The buyer should leave with a choice, not just a definition. Use the same proof dimensions across 34 grade and fallback options.
| Option | Best use | Proof needed | Tradeoff |
|---|---|---|---|
| 34 grade Sm2Co17 | Compact high-temperature circuits where package density and demagnetization margin justify higher evidence burden. | 34/32 MGOe BHmax basis, Br, Hcb, Hcj, coefficient, curve package, geometry review. | Strong screening value but supplier equivalence and temperature limits must be confirmed. |
| 32 MGOe-class Sm2Co17 | Sm2Co17 stability is needed, but the design can accept slightly more magnet volume. | Same property table and curves, with lower package-density expectation. | Often easier supplier comparison; may cost less in qualification complexity. |
| 35E-equivalent high-energy SmCo | Very tight package density or high-value motor/actuator programs with supplier support. | Supplier-specific grade table, high-temperature curves, and substitution rationale. | Potential performance gain with more sourcing, MOQ, and equivalence risk. |
| SmCo5 | Thermal/corrosion needs are real but maximum energy product is not the bottleneck. | Family confirmation, lower-energy circuit model, coating/media review. | Lower energy density but may simplify some lower-output hot or corrosive applications. |
| High-temperature NdFeB | Moderate temperature, cost pressure, and strong room-temperature field dominate. | Temperature derating, corrosion/coating plan, heavy-rare-earth and irreversible-loss review. | Can reduce cost, but heat and corrosion risk can erase the advantage. |
Standards and procurement clauses help frame the evidence request, but they do not replace supplier-specific magnetic curves, drawings, or legal review.
| Layer | Verified use | Limit | Buyer action | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ASTM A1102-19 | Defines the public specification scope for technically important sintered SmCo, including 1:5 and 2:17 families. | Does not replace supplier grade tables or temperature-specific demagnetization curves. | Use it to name the material family and acceptance context in RFQ/quality language. | [R6] |
| ASTM A977/A977M | Referenced by ASTM A1102 for characterizing specific magnetic hysteresis behavior and demagnetization curves. | Public summaries do not give free grade-by-grade curve data. | Request supplier curve evidence or testing using A977/A977M or an agreed equivalent. | [R6] |
| DFARS 252.225-7052 through 2026 | For covered contracts, the restriction includes melting samarium with cobalt and subsequent magnet production phases. | Only applies when the clause and acquisition context make it relevant. | Confirm alloy production, powder, pressing/sintering or bonding, magnetization, and origin records. | [R10] |
| DFARS 252.225-7052 from 2027-01-01 | For covered SmCo magnets, the restriction expands to the entire supply chain from ore or feedstock, including recycled material, through finished magnets. | This is procurement-law context, not a magnetic-performance claim. | For long programs, collect upstream supply-chain evidence before design lock. | [R9][R10] |
| Critical minerals context | DOE 2023 lists cobalt as critical in the short term for energy context; USGS final 2025 list includes both cobalt and samarium. | Critical-minerals status is not a ban and does not determine grade choice by itself. | Use it as a supply-continuity trigger for dual-source, origin, and lifecycle-risk review. | [R7][R8] |
The most expensive mistakes usually come from evidence gaps that are discovered after the material has already been selected.
Trigger: The buyer requests 34 grade but does not specify value windows, basis, or test method.
Impact: Supplier quotes become non-comparable and substitutions look safer than they are.
Mitigation: Quote by BHmax, Br, Hcb, Hcj, coefficient, maximum temperature, curves, and revision date.
Trigger: A 300 C reference is treated as universal continuous-use approval.
Impact: Irreversible loss, field drift, or demagnetization can appear late in qualification.
Mitigation: Separate continuous temperature, peak dwell, cycle count, load line, and supplier curve evidence.
Trigger: Motors, actuators, or loaded circuits use BHmax but do not model reverse field.
Impact: The magnet can demagnetize even when room-temperature table values look strong.
Mitigation: Compare Hcj margin with temperature-specific demagnetization curves and operating point.
Trigger: Thin rings, sharp corners, press-fit assembly, or coating decisions are reviewed after material lock.
Impact: Chipping, cracks, handling loss, or inspection failures consume sample cycles.
Mitigation: Review thinnest section, chamfer, fixture, coating, and inspection before purchase order.
Trigger: Origin, lot traceability, ASTM language, or DFARS relevance is checked after sample approval.
Impact: A technically valid magnet can still fail procurement or customer acceptance rules.
Mitigation: Add sourcing and documentation evidence to the first RFQ, especially for defense/aerospace work.
Trigger: 34 grade is selected because it sounds strongest, not because the design needs it.
Impact: The project pays for avoidable material, machining, validation, and supplier-equivalence work.
Mitigation: Compare 32 MGOe Sm2Co17, SmCo5, and high-temperature NdFeB against the same duty profile.
These items are intentionally marked as unresolved instead of being guessed. Each one has a minimum path to convert uncertainty into supplier evidence.
| Unknown | Why public data is insufficient | Minimum validation path |
|---|---|---|
| 34 grade price, MOQ, and lead time | No stable public benchmark was found that is specific enough to grade, geometry, quantity, origin, and documentation. | RFQ with quote date, shape, tolerance, coating, quantity breaks, destination, documentation need, and payment/shipping terms. |
| Universal geometry derating | Public sheets warn that part geometry affects properties, but do not publish a safe all-shape derating table. | Submit drawing, thinnest section, edge prep, magnetization direction, retention method, and request sample inspection gates. |
| Interchangeability between EEC 34, Arnold 35E, and other supplier systems | Public grade systems use different names, value bases, and temperature assumptions. | Require one normalized table and curves for each candidate; approve substitution only by property and duty profile. |
| Coating/media lifetime | SmCo corrosion resistance does not prove compatibility with every cleaning fluid, galvanic couple, oilfield fluid, or sterilization cycle. | Define media, temperature, dwell, cleaning chemistry, and acceptance criteria; test coated and uncoated samples if exposure is severe. |
| Irreversible loss at actual load line | Room-temperature table values do not encode the circuit load line, reverse-field exposure, or dwell profile. | Request demagnetization curves at operating temperature and model the operating point before sample approval. |
| Contract-specific compliance | DFARS and origin clauses depend on contract flowdown, acquisition type, timing, and exceptions. | Ask procurement/legal to confirm clause applicability while supplier engineering confirms process and origin evidence. |
Assumptions: Supplier quote lists BHmax 33.5 MGOe, Br 11.8 kG, Hcj 18 kOe, 300 C maximum, typical values only.
Process: Run the checker with typical basis, then ask for guaranteed minimums and demagnetization curves.
Outcome: Likely conditional candidate; RFQ can proceed only if minimum values and curves support the drawing.
Assumptions: 220 C continuous, 270 C peak, reverse-field exposure around 7 kOe, tight package space.
Process: Use the checker to surface thermal and reverse-field margin, then compare 34 grade with 35E-equivalent SmCo.
Outcome: 34 grade is defensible if supplier proves irreversible-loss control at temperature and geometry.
Assumptions: Catalog values match public 34 grade, but the thinnest section is 1.1 mm with press-fit assembly.
Process: Treat geometry risk as a decision gate even if magnetic values pass.
Outcome: Material approval waits for chamfer, fixture, coating, and inspection plan.
Assumptions: 90 C continuous, low reverse-field exposure, loose package envelope, and cost-sensitive sourcing.
Process: Run the checker and compare lower-grade Sm2Co17, SmCo5, and high-temperature NdFeB.
Outcome: 34 grade is probably over-selected unless traceability or package constraints force it.
Send the checker output with these fields so the supplier can quote an auditable value set instead of a loose grade label.
These links keep the single main URL focused while letting buyers branch into characteristics, applications, product family, and validation context.
Numeric values are used as screening references. Public evidence that is conflicting, unavailable, or supplier-specific is marked directly instead of converted into false precision.
| ID | Source | Date | Coverage | Certainty |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1 | Electron Energy Corporation 34 Grade SmCo sell sheet PDF | Accessed 2026-06-17 | Dedicated EEC 2:17-34 sheet with 34/32 MGOe, 11.9/11.7 kG Br, 18 kOe minimum iHc, -0.035%/C Br RTC, 300 C maximum operating temperature, demagnetization curves, geometry caveat, and DFARS-compliant claim. | Supplier source; confirm current revision before RFQ lock |
| R2 | Electron Energy Corporation SmCo general sell sheet | Accessed 2026-06-17 | General SmCo table listing EEC 2:17-34 with 34 MGOe typical, 32 MGOe minimum, and 250 C maximum operating temperature. | Supplier source; conflicts with some 300 C references |
| R3 | Electron Energy Corporation technical brief: Advancements in SmCo Magnetic Properties | Accessed 2026-06-17 | 2:17-34 table showing 34 MGOe typical, 32 MGOe minimum, 11.9 kG Br, 18 kOe minimum Hcj, and 300 C maximum operating temperature reference. | Supplier technical source; screening data only |
| R4 | Arnold Magnetic Technologies RECOMA SmCo grades page | Accessed 2026-06-17 | Nearby RECOMA 35E high-energy Sm2Co17 table showing 33.3 MGOe typical / 32 MGOe minimum, 11.9/11.7 kG Br, 23/21 kOe Hcj, -0.035%/K Br coefficient, and 350 C maximum operating temperature. | Supplier source; not an automatic 34 grade equivalence claim |
| R5 | Goudsmit Samarium Cobalt grade system PDF | Issue date 2025-08-22; accessed 2026-06-17 | Public common-grade table through S32, contact-for-other-grades note, and statement that actual demagnetization-curve measurements are available on request. | Supplier source; use for grade-system comparison only |
| R6 | ASTM A1102-19 public standard summary | Accessed 2026-06-17 | Sintered SmCo family scope and public references to ASTM A977/A977M for demagnetization-curve characterization. | Standards source; full text may require purchase |
| R7 | U.S. DOE 2023 Critical Materials Assessment | Accessed 2026-06-17 | DOE energy critical-material context identifying cobalt as critical in the short term and discussing magnet-related material supply risk. | Government source; program impact varies |
| R8 | Federal Register Final 2025 List of Critical Minerals | Published 2025-11-07; accessed 2026-06-17 | USGS final 2025 critical minerals list context including cobalt and samarium, with publication date and dynamic-list caveat. | Government source; check current list for active programs |
| R9 | DFARS 252.225-7052 and 2024 Federal Register rule context | Accessed 2026-06-17 | Restrictions affecting samarium-cobalt magnets in covered defense acquisitions, including January 1, 2027 supply-chain expansion context. | Legal/procurement source; confirm applicability with counsel |
| R10 | Acquisition.gov DFARS 252.225-7052 clause page | Accessed 2026-06-17 | Current clause reference for covered magnets, tantalum, and tungsten restrictions. | Legal/procurement source; clause flowdown is contract-specific |
| U1 | Public research gap | Reviewed 2026-06-17 | No reliable public 34 grade price, MOQ, lead-time, or universal-equivalence benchmark found. | Known unknown; resolve by supplier RFQ |
| P1 | SmCoSupply engineering synthesis | Reviewed 2026-06-17 | Geometry, chipping, coating, handling, and inspection risk based on SmCo manufacturing practice and internal buyer guidance. | Practice-based guidance; confirm against final drawing |
| P2 | SmCoSupply grade-selection guidance | Reviewed 2026-06-17 | RFQ, fallback-grade, SmCo5 versus Sm2Co17, and supplier-equivalence workflow. | Internal guidance grounded in public supplier tables |
Include the checker result and any supplier table you already have. The review should focus on evidence gaps, not only material name.
Inquiry Email