|
Posted by Richard Smith on March 28, 2007, 1:54 pm
Please log in for more thread options
Second question on my "railings around a building" job.
If you really "square" the ends of the horizontal tube so that its
butt against plate is very good match - tight fit with no gap -- that
is going to make your welding a lot easier than when you have varying
gaps with a canted-end rough cut?
Seemed to me good fit up means you can sweep around fast on a high
current with a short arc and get a small neat penetrated weld even
with 6013?
I found myself frigging around with the amps on the welder to avoid
burn-through as the gap varied, wasting 20 times as much time as it
would have taken to square-off the tubes in the first place - and
producing much worse-looking welds. Is this the common experience?
I squared-up half the tubes before being stopped, leaving half with
well-canted cuts, leading to this impression of mine.
How do you check "square end" on a tube? I improvised and it worked
well for me - I took a sheet of paper and wrapped it once and a bit
around the pipe, matching the wrap of the paper to overlap perfectly -
at which you get a "square" to sight any correction made with a
4~1/2inch angle-grinder. What better methods exist?
Richard Smith
|
|
Posted by Steve B on March 28, 2007, 2:49 pm
Please log in for more thread options
> Second question on my "railings around a building" job.
>
> If you really "square" the ends of the horizontal tube so that its
> butt against plate is very good match - tight fit with no gap -- that
> is going to make your welding a lot easier than when you have varying
> gaps with a canted-end rough cut?
>
> Seemed to me good fit up means you can sweep around fast on a high
> current with a short arc and get a small neat penetrated weld even
> with 6013?
>
> I found myself frigging around with the amps on the welder to avoid
> burn-through as the gap varied, wasting 20 times as much time as it
> would have taken to square-off the tubes in the first place - and
> producing much worse-looking welds. Is this the common experience?
>
> I squared-up half the tubes before being stopped, leaving half with
> well-canted cuts, leading to this impression of mine.
>
> How do you check "square end" on a tube? I improvised and it worked
> well for me - I took a sheet of paper and wrapped it once and a bit
> around the pipe, matching the wrap of the paper to overlap perfectly -
> at which you get a "square" to sight any correction made with a
> 4~1/2inch angle-grinder. What better methods exist?
>
> Richard Smith
I was a steel erection contractor. We used to repair and make a lot of
ornamental metal, which consists of the components you are talking about.
I used almost exclusively 3/32" 6011 with the stinger negative. I know it's
not in the book that way, but it worked like a charm to weld the small stuff
with a narrow bead, good appearance, and decent penetration. I could even
butt weld two pieces of .065" tubing together with this combination. Try
it, it may be the answer to SOME of the situations you talk about. Short
arc important, and keep the puddle small, which is easy with that small of a
rod.
Steve
|
|
Posted by Tom Wait on March 28, 2007, 3:46 pm
Please log in for more thread options
contractor. We used to repair and make a lot of
> ornamental metal, which consists of the components you are talking about.
>
> I used almost exclusively 3/32" 6011 with the stinger negative. I know
it's
> not in the book that way,
It's not in the cards for Richard either. He's using an A/C buzz box. I
would try 3/32 7014 because its sooo damn easy to weld anything with.
Tom
|
|
Posted by Steve B on March 28, 2007, 3:52 pm
Please log in for more thread options
>
> contractor. We used to repair and make a lot of
>> ornamental metal, which consists of the components you are talking about.
>>
>> I used almost exclusively 3/32" 6011 with the stinger negative. I know
> it's
>> not in the book that way,
>
> It's not in the cards for Richard either. He's using an A/C buzz box. I
> would try 3/32 7014 because its sooo damn easy to weld anything with.
> Tom
>
>
Duh. I didn't notice that factoid. Never mind.
7014 would be interesting. For the OP, please report on the results if you
use it, or if you find the acceptable solution to your situation.
Steve
|
|
Posted by Richard Smith on March 28, 2007, 5:20 pm
Please log in for more thread options
> >
> > contractor. We used to repair and make a lot of
> >> ornamental metal, which consists of the components you are talking about.
> >>
> >> I used almost exclusively 3/32" 6011 with the stinger negative. I know
> > it's
> >> not in the book that way,
> >
> > It's not in the cards for Richard either. He's using an A/C buzz box. I
> > would try 3/32 7014 because its sooo damn easy to weld anything with.
> > Tom
> >
> >
>
> Duh. I didn't notice that factoid. Never mind.
>
> 7014 would be interesting. For the OP, please report on the results if you
> use it, or if you find the acceptable solution to your situation.
>
> Steve
I think 6011 will burn on an AC buzz-box. Will try to get some and
report back. Might be able to get a handful of Arcos Nu5's.
Anyway, there are 6011's formulated specifically for buzz-boxes - for
instance the Lincoln Fleetweld 180 - see
http://www.mylincolnelectric.com/Catalog/consumabledatasheet.asp?p=40919
Never tried them. Comments?
Given that all 6011's are designed for the purpose of running on AC:
When I tried root-running a V-prep'd pipe using 6011 on AC (used an
"Oxford" oil-cooled welding transformer - admittedly a superb machine
costing twice as much as a DC-delivering fair quality economical
inverter) - was taken aback that the arc crackled/buzzed in time to
the mains frequency - yet the weld seemed identical and the rod
handling seemed identical *to the best of my limited ability to judge
this!*. Run 6011 on DC and the arc is a smooth roar, by the way.
Now, *to the best of my ability to judge* !!! - for rutiles (6013's) -
you simply cannot tell from the rod handling whether it is on AC or DC
- I'll gladly be told that I should be able to observe some difference
:-)
Richard Smith
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | stick / SMA weld fence / railing / tube - choose rods | March 28, 2007, 1:48 pm |
| SEJW: closure weld on end of 1/16" dia SS tube | January 9, 2008, 5:02 pm |
| stick welding machines - possible same Amps but different weld performance? | March 27, 2008, 6:17 pm |
| What is the easiest and best way to measure stair railing? | April 30, 2007, 9:38 pm |
| OT tube bending | April 23, 2006, 6:55 am |
| Welding 1.6mm square tube. | June 13, 2007, 8:36 pm |
| techniques for capping steel tube? | May 17, 2007, 12:32 pm |
| flatten ends of tube - but no torch | June 22, 2008, 2:22 pm |
| Welding Aluminum Tube 6061 T6 0.065 wall | December 9, 2007, 9:04 pm |
| Welding galvanised steel tube / weldmesh? | March 30, 2008, 6:28 pm |
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap
>
> If you really "square" the ends of the horizontal tube so that its
> butt against plate is very good match - tight fit with no gap -- that
> is going to make your welding a lot easier than when you have varying
> gaps with a canted-end rough cut?
>
> Seemed to me good fit up means you can sweep around fast on a high
> current with a short arc and get a small neat penetrated weld even
> with 6013?
>
> I found myself frigging around with the amps on the welder to avoid
> burn-through as the gap varied, wasting 20 times as much time as it
> would have taken to square-off the tubes in the first place - and
> producing much worse-looking welds. Is this the common experience?
>
> I squared-up half the tubes before being stopped, leaving half with
> well-canted cuts, leading to this impression of mine.
>
> How do you check "square end" on a tube? I improvised and it worked
> well for me - I took a sheet of paper and wrapped it once and a bit
> around the pipe, matching the wrap of the paper to overlap perfectly -
> at which you get a "square" to sight any correction made with a
> 4~1/2inch angle-grinder. What better methods exist?
>
> Richard Smith