Reply to Thread

Re: Terminology, polarity and penetration

Originally Posted by Willie B

I've been herding electrons since 1969. Until January this year no one has challenged what you've said. Suddenly the internet is flooded with theory contradicting it.

I don't know, I haven't gone wrong all these years believing that flow of electrons does work.


I can't see electrons, maybe I'm a fool thinking they go where I want them to go. They might be thumbing their noses at me, going the other way, how would I know?

I always used to say........be the puddle........be the metal. Why should you be any different. As long as you know what you're lookin' at, and it works,, it's golden.

Re: Terminology, polarity and penetration

Originally Posted by StandarDyne

I guess they were getting "revenge" on the electricians.

When I worked as a carpenter in residential home construction, we had an ongoing feud with the electricians because I swear these guys were a freaking MENACE to the job. Forget to wire a circuit until the sheetrock was already up? No problemo, just take a BF sledgehammer and bust out a 3' x 3' opening in the sheet rock to put in your boxes! And while you're at it, take that Sawzall and chop through -- oh, I dunno, let's say FOUR studs in that BEARING wall, you don't want to have to fiddle around with a fish or anything like that!

Those would not be electricians. Those are cave men.

Re: Terminology, polarity and penetration

Originally Posted by Willie B

I usually contain electrons, but mice & forklift drivers are more numerous than I.
Mice eat everything not metal.
Forklift operators crash through metal conduit to destroy wiring. One facility, I claim they could break cannon balls. I was called in for a "minor" project Thursday. They had "disconnected" two motors, wanted them re connected. I accused them of chaining a truck to the conduits & yanking them.

I guess they were getting "revenge" on the electricians.

When I worked as a carpenter in residential home construction, we had an ongoing feud with the electricians because I swear these guys were a freaking MENACE to the job. Forget to wire a circuit until the sheetrock was already up? No problemo, just take a BF sledgehammer and bust out a 3' x 3' opening in the sheet rock to put in your boxes! And while you're at it, take that Sawzall and chop through -- oh, I dunno, let's say FOUR studs in that BEARING wall, you don't want to have to fiddle around with a fish or anything like that!

Re: Terminology, polarity and penetration

Originally Posted by SlowBlues

Angry pixies and the magic smoke.

The best you can do is to contain them

I usually contain electrons, but mice & forklift drivers are more numerous than I.
Mice eat everything not metal.
Forklift operators crash through metal conduit to destroy wiring. One facility, I claim they could break cannon balls. I was called in for a "minor" project Thursday. They had "disconnected" two motors, wanted them re connected. I accused them of chaining a truck to the conduits & yanking them.

Re: Terminology, polarity and penetration

Originally Posted by SlowBlues

Angry pixies and the magic smoke.

The best you can do is to contain them

So it’s all smoke an mirrors and a talented hand with JB Weld. Thanks for explaining it.

Re: Terminology, polarity and penetration

Angry pixies and the magic smoke.

The best you can do is to contain them

Re: Terminology, polarity and penetration

Originally Posted by MinnesotaDave

DCEN, DC-, DC straight: All mean the stinger or tig torch are negative. They also mean the electricity is "flowing" from the stinger to the workpiece.
DCEP, DC+, DC reverse: Stinger or tig torch are positive.


In tig welding it is easy to see which "direction" current "flows" by how the tungsten reacts.
In DC+ the electricity flows into the tungsten - causing it to ball up and burn back.
As a result, greater depth of fusion (penetration) is in DC- and the tungsten can handle the current.

In stick, although the "flow" is the same, the result on depth of fusion is reversed.

"...there is a jet action and/or expansion of gases in the arc at the electrode tip.
This expansion causes the molten metal to be propelled with great speed across the arc.
The molten metal impacts the base metal with greater force.
This heavy impact on the base metal helps to produce deep, penetrating welds."
~Modern Welding 1997 Althouse, Turnquist, Bowditch, and Bowditch."

As far as I know, this is the current theory on how this all works and what it all means.

None of my textbooks have it any other way.

As far as "on-line consensus" goes - a consensus is not of much value.

I've been herding electrons since 1969. Until January this year no one has challenged what you've said. Suddenly the internet is flooded with theory contradicting it.

I don't know, I haven't gone wrong all these years believing that flow of electrons does work.


I can't see electrons, maybe I'm a fool thinking they go where I want them to go. They might be thumbing their noses at me, going the other way, how would I know?

Re: Terminology, polarity and penetration

Originally Posted by MinnesotaDave

DCEN, DC-, DC straight: All mean the stinger or tig torch are negative. They also mean the electricity is "flowing" from the stinger to the workpiece.
DCEP, DC+, DC reverse: Stinger or tig torch are positive.

In tig welding it is easy to see which "direction" current "flows" by how the tungsten reacts.
In DC+ the electricity flows into the tungsten - causing it to ball up and burn back.
As a result, greater depth of fusion (penetration) is in DC- and the tungsten can handle the current.

In stick, although the "flow" is the same, the result on depth of fusion is reversed.

"...there is a jet action and/or expansion of gases in the arc at the electrode tip.
This expansion causes the molten metal to be propelled with great speed across the arc.
The molten metal impacts the base metal with greater force.
This heavy impact on the base metal helps to produce deep, penetrating welds."
~Modern Welding 1997 Althouse, Turnquist, Bowditch, and Bowditch."

As far as I know, this is the current theory on how this all works and what it all means.

None of my textbooks have it any other way.

As far as "on-line consensus" goes - a consensus is not of much value.

Thanks Dave.

The issue is not, not knowing. The issue is the amount of contradictory mis-information on the net and in some reference books.

I used "consensus" to mean non-contradictory. A polite way of saying get rid of the rubbish.

Jack

Re: Terminology, polarity and penetration

Originally Posted by Oldiron2

You missed his point entirely, IMHO. His comment ("Somebody please SAVE US from all these terrifying WORDS and IDEAS!!!") was about the political correct-speak, the crazy ideas about grade-school kids being told to decide their gender, and such and conservative ideas being deleted/banned. You are indirectly right in the sense that there's a real purpose in such nonsense though---it's to destroy our system of civilization and replace it with a Marxist society with them at the top, controlling everything.
Yes, the nation's biggest problems are because a relatively small number of people have risen to positions of power, both in and out of government, and are controlling the media, corrupting the top law enforcement agencies, and feeding the general public many lies. The tops of both parties include some, although the majority of the worst offenders constitute the demoncrap party.
Have you seen the movie 2000 Mules? It contains incontrovertible data such as even local Police and DA's rely upon to convict lots of criminals.

Proves the 2020 election was stolen...

Re: Terminology, polarity and penetration

Originally Posted by Jack Ryan

Why is it so?

I was looking for information related to welding polarity on the Internet and found quite a lot of conflicting information. Not just a bit different – the complete opposite. I was also distracted by some of the archaic terminology that some authors insist on using. DCSP (DC Straight Polarity) and DCRP (DC Reverse Polarity) for example, should, in my view, be dropped from the welding vocabulary. I realise many of you grew up with that terminology but now, it has no meaning.

DCSP used to be the conventional polarity used in SMAW (also called ARC and STICK welding). The electrode is negative, and the work is positive (DCEN) because this gave better penetration. DCRP (DCEP) was used if less penetration was needed when, for example, welding thin sheets. Those days of bare electrodes are long gone and now flux covered electrodes like the 6010 give best penetration using DCRP (DCEP).

DCSP and DCRP no longer reflect the original use and do not give any hint to the actual polarity being used. They are misleading, confusing and many don’t know what they mean. For example, the AWS defines STRAIGHT POLARITY:

Is when the flow of electrons travels from the workpiece, which is the negative pole, to the electrode, the positive pole.

https://awo.aws.org/glossary/straight-polarity/

Even the AWS can’t come to grips with it. Its definition of reverse polarity is also wrong.


Then there is polarity and penetration.


Universal Technical Institute - Without reference to a specific process:

It’s important for a welder to know the meaning of polarity and understand how it affects the welding process. Typically, electrode-positive (reversed polarity) welding results in deeper penetration.
https://www.uti.edu/blog/welding/welding-polarity

That is not the typical case at all. In TIG welding, where the electrode is not consumed, DCEN is used and about 67% of the arc heat (and consequent penetration) is delivered to the work piece via a stream of electrons. If the polarity is reversed (DCEP), the electrode gets very hot and the work is bombarded by a stream of positive Ions causing cathodic etching (cleaning).


In GMAW, where the electrode is consumed, the use of DCEP heats the electrode and the melted electrode is transferred to the weld pool via the metallic arc along with its heat. This heat transfer tends to balance heat distribution and helps ensure that there is sufficient penetration.


There are many other variables affecting penetration including joint preparation, the use of flux, flux composition, transfer mode and shielding gas.

The statement “DCEP gives better penetration” is not true unless it is fully qualified with the process, parameters, shielding etc. In a different context, even using the same process, DCEN might give better penetration.

Some sort of on-line consensus would be good.

Jack

DCEN, DC-, DC straight: All mean the stinger or tig torch are negative. They also mean the electricity is "flowing" from the stinger to the workpiece.
DCEP, DC+, DC reverse: Stinger or tig torch are positive.


In tig welding it is easy to see which "direction" current "flows" by how the tungsten reacts.
In DC+ the electricity flows into the tungsten - causing it to ball up and burn back.
As a result, greater depth of fusion (penetration) is in DC- and the tungsten can handle the current.

In stick, although the "flow" is the same, the result on depth of fusion is reversed.

"...there is a jet action and/or expansion of gases in the arc at the electrode tip.
This expansion causes the molten metal to be propelled with great speed across the arc.
The molten metal impacts the base metal with greater force.
This heavy impact on the base metal helps to produce deep, penetrating welds."
~Modern Welding 1997 Althouse, Turnquist, Bowditch, and Bowditch."

As far as I know, this is the current theory on how this all works and what it all means.

None of my textbooks have it any other way.

As far as "on-line consensus" goes - a consensus is not of much value.

Re: Terminology, polarity and penetration

Originally Posted by 123weld

there is no "somebody" that gonna save the people. the people shoulda saved themselves. that is why we r where we r today - "in peril"

You missed his point entirely, IMHO. His comment ("Somebody please SAVE US from all these terrifying WORDS and IDEAS!!!") was about the political correct-speak, the crazy ideas about grade-school kids being told to decide their gender, and such and conservative ideas being deleted/banned. You are indirectly right in the sense that there's a real purpose in such nonsense though---it's to destroy our system of civilization and replace it with a Marxist society with them at the top, controlling everything.
Yes, the nation's biggest problems are because a relatively small number of people have risen to positions of power, both in and out of government, and are controlling the media, corrupting the top law enforcement agencies, and feeding the general public many lies. The tops of both parties include some, although the majority of the worst offenders constitute the demoncrap party.
Have you seen the movie 2000 Mules? It contains incontrovertible data such as even local Police and DA's rely upon to convict lots of criminals.

Re: Terminology, polarity and penetration

Originally Posted by StandarDyne

Somebody please SAVE US from all these terrifying WORDS and IDEAS!!!

there is no "somebody" that gonna save the people. the people shoulda saved themselves. that is why we r where we r today - "in peril"

Re: Terminology, polarity and penetration

Originally Posted by Jack Ryan

That would be a full time job for an army of editors/checkers. I think Facebook is much worse - or is it better? There are a lot of experts there.

I doubt Google cares.

Jack

not neccesarily, places like the "utah data center" computers/programs pick up keywords like " kill, gun, cash, vaccine, babyfood, gas, etc. or whatever the latest is, in civilaians audio/text (as pretty much every form of communication is monitored). and it merges it w/ ur personal profile they got on u, w/ a score/number, and if it throws a flag, it diverts it to a human somewhere, that evaulates it, then if they think it needs further evaluation, he/she forward it toi there boss. what i said in #37 wasnt my beliefs, but a post to see what type of responses id get. thank u for being polite while questioniong it

Re: Terminology, polarity and penetration

The Lincoln's "Procedure Handbook of Arc Welding is very good book for learning the welding trade.
I used the book when I was 14 years old to learn welding.

Dave

Originally Posted by Eelspike

I agree Jack! I went to the Lincoln's "Procedure Handbook of Arc Welding" looking for some stainless dual shield info. So i found the old TIG welding penetration profiles that have alway stuck in my head affecting the way I think about puddle shape and puddle management across processes. I realize all processes act differently depending on a lot of variables.

This is from the 13th edition of the handbook page 9.4-2. I love Lincoln for there long term support of the welding industry and educational programs.

Attachment 1739695

Re: Terminology, polarity and penetration

I agree Jack! I went to the Lincoln's "Procedure Handbook of Arc Welding" looking for some stainless dual shield info. So i found the old TIG welding penetration profiles that have alway stuck in my head affecting the way I think about puddle shape and puddle management across processes. I realize all processes act differently depending on a lot of variables.

This is from the 13th edition of the handbook page 9.4-2. I love Lincoln for there long term support of the welding industry and educational programs.

Attachment 1739695

Re: Terminology, polarity and penetration

Originally Posted by 123weld

its called "disinformation", which is becoming a serious matter. it should be flagged and reported to google. maybe try facebook and twitters, they are fact checked

Somebody please SAVE US from all these terrifying WORDS and IDEAS!!!

Re: Terminology, polarity and penetration

The thread was about references on the WEB and sometimes also in books that are contradictory or just straight out wrong. In particular, discussions about polarity and penetration.

Read forum abouit welding thin sheet. Almost always includes some discussion of straight polarity and 6013, neither I use. I could, couild use straight, dont think about it, usuakky use 1/8 if humanly possible abd used 6 smaller rods out of a box in 20 years on an extreme job.
Only real test I took regarding sheet at a powerhouse was 3/32 6011 on DCRP.
Some stuff is partly true, yes 13 is milder but takes 85A to run the 3/32 while 6011 runs at 65 and freezes fast.

Re: Terminology, polarity and penetration

Originally Posted by 123weld

its called "disinformation", which is becoming a serious matter. it should be flagged and reported to google. maybe try facebook and twitters, they are fact checked

Much of that is put out by the Meanstreem Media, with the blessings of farcebook, et al, so reporting it is a waste of time.

Re: Terminology, polarity and penetration

Originally Posted by 123weld

its called "disinformation", which is becoming a serious matter. it should be flagged and reported to google. maybe try facebook and twitters, they are fact checked

That would be a full time job for an army of editors/checkers. I think Facebook is much worse - or is it better? There are a lot of experts there.

I doubt Google cares.

Jack

Re: Terminology, polarity and penetration

Originally Posted by Willie B

I believe PENETRATION is a word with numerous definitions.
Penetration is akin to fusion. 6010 stick is known for good penetration, it is somewhat violent in getting in there, splashing away surface metal, getting down to doing its own cleaning. That isn't to say you can successfully weld over a crack without grinding it open. DEEP penetration is unnecessary in a well prepared joint. Good fusion becomes the important factor.

I see where you are coming from. Penetration only has one definition though (the dictionary definition) - it is not a defined welding term.

In welding, it can mean depth of fusion, joint penetration or root penetration and generally the meaning is clear from the context.

I agree, deep penetration (depth of fusion) is not necessary and doesn't help, and deep (joint) penetration is only useful to the depth of the joint (depending on preparation).

Jack

Re: Terminology, polarity and penetration

Originally Posted by Jack Ryan

Yes, absolutely.

There is an avalanche of plagiarism that copies all the rubbish across the internet. Once it becomes fact, it ends up in books as well.

Jack

its called "disinformation", which is becoming a serious matter. it should be flagged and reported to google. maybe try facebook and twitters, they are fact checked

Re: Terminology, polarity and penetration

Originally Posted by Eelspike

I was less confused before I started reading this thread. It seems to me that deeper and better penetration are not always the same thing and maybe we are really look for useful - effective - manageable penetration in each of the many welding processes. When someone states that in Dc welding the current is not really flowing from negative to positive that just seems counter to the lived experience of this welded. In DCEC (DCSP) with flux-core welding with say Lincoln NR-233 or Coreshield 8 vertical up the wire will sometimes dig a hole if you lose flux coverage, run to hot or don't aim the wire down a little. To me the penetration profile of that family of flux core wires is a narrow cone deeper than it is wide and as you travel up you point the wire and therefore cone down so the molten metal doesn't spill back out these wires can have an annoying tendency toward lack of fusion at the toes. Conversely with the dual shield wires on DCEP (DCRP) it seems as if there is a wider round bottomed penetration profile that consequently washes in more readily at the toes. I alway thought this was explained by the friction of the electrons either flowing directly into the base metal on SP from the electrode in a narrow focus stream or on RP the electrons flowing back to the electrode from a wide swath of the base metal. I thought all this was confirmed by the way TIG welding acts. I also a long time ago came to believe that RP processes act like the cleaning action we see from the positive balance part of the cycle on AC tig brakes the oxide layer on aluminium it so that welding on RP helps and even forcefully expels contaminants from the weld puddle and generally result in a more homogenous mix of filler and base metal and a cleaner weld in general. This also meant that i believed the on SP we lose the cleaning action although i do see that once fluid the puddle will still homogenize.

The thread was about references on the WEB and sometimes also in books that are contradictory or just straight out wrong. In particular, discussions about polarity and penetration.

I agree with your comment that deeper penetration is not necessarily better. There are, of course, several meanings (in welding) that the word penetration can have.

You mentioned some other interesting issues but I won't comment on them now for fear of going off on a tangent.

I can't say that I have ever had a problem with fat separating in the weld puddle though

Thanks
Jack

Re: Terminology, polarity and penetration

Interesting read.

Re: Terminology, polarity and penetration

There is an avalanche of plagiarism that copies all the rubbish across the internet. Once it becomes fact, it ends up in books as well.

We could come up with a list of stuff not so accurate. See them on the forum every day.

Re: Terminology, polarity and penetration

That is really good, lots of confusion between the 2.