Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 57

Thread: Terminology, polarity and penetration

  1. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Location
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Posts
    154
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terminology, polarity and penetration

    Quote Originally Posted by danielplace View Post
    They do except when someone screws up the text. There is ONLY ONE meaning that has ever been or ever will be correct for these terminologies.

    Yes, they got the definition wrong for both straight and reverse. Two errors that appear not to be copy/paste related. And yet it is still there.

    In many places though, a complete lack of understanding is displayed on WEB sites (text and YouTube) and even in reference books, explanations are ambiguous and sometimes wrong.

    Given the number of posts asking the same questions and complaining about the same contradictory statements I think we can safely assume there is a general lack of clarity.

    I too can identify correct statements but I pity someone who doesn't already know trying to find the correct answers.

    Jack

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    1,457
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terminology, polarity and penetration

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Ryan View Post
    Yes, they got the definition wrong for both straight and reverse. Two errors that appear not to be copy/paste related. And yet it is still there.

    In many places though, a complete lack of understanding is displayed on WEB sites (text and YouTube) and even in reference books, explanations are ambiguous and sometimes wrong.

    Given the number of posts asking the same questions and complaining about the same contradictory statements I think we can safely assume there is a general lack of clarity.

    I too can identify correct statements but I pity someone who doesn't already know trying to find the correct answers.

    Jack
    Jack,
    I didn't read all the posts made but yea I am sure you can find plenty of crappy welding info out there in all forms. Like that with anything today. The internet age. Can't trust all you read or even see.
    Once a mistake has been made in a major publication like the AWS that isn't ever fixed is going to spread that false info far and wide as it is quoted and repeated elsewhere time and time again. I believe this is how it snowballs because many of the welding articles are written by people that may not even know welding. Then you tubers know they are right because they just read it 5 minutes before making the video so many ways for someone to get it wrong.
    Last edited by danielplace; 05-16-2022 at 10:36 PM.

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Central California
    Posts
    4,208
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terminology, polarity and penetration

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Ryan View Post
    My original point was that not all WEB sites agree. As an obvious example, look up those same acronyms in the AWS glossary - the complete opposite.
    As I said earlier and Daniel states in more detail, that is clearly an error which I doubt you'll find anywhere in AWS written documents. It doesn't help your general argument at all.

    That's fine. It is not necessary to fully understand physics and metallurgy to weld and the people who do often can't weld.
    Yes, just as one does not need to understand any of the workings of engines, transmissions, ignition systems, or other parts of a vehicle's drive train, if something goes wrong with it while away from "civilization", the more one knows the better the chance he can solve the problem and not be stranded for hours, or worse.

    With welding, an understanding of the developmental history can even lead to a better understanding of modern techniques, plus it's interesting in it's own right, at least it is to me.

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Location
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Posts
    154
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terminology, polarity and penetration

    Quote Originally Posted by danielplace View Post
    Jack,
    I didn't read all the posts made but yea I am sure you can find plenty of crappy welding info out there in all forms. Like that with anything today. The internet age. Can't trust all you read or even see.
    Once a mistake has been made in a major publication like the AWS that isn't ever fixed is going to spread that false info far and wide as it is quoted and repeated elsewhere time and time again. I believe this is how it snowballs because many of the welding articles are written by people that may not even know welding. Then you tubers know they are right because they just read it 5 minutes before making the video so many ways for someone to get it wrong.
    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

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Location
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Posts
    154
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terminology, polarity and penetration

    Quote Originally Posted by Oldiron2 View Post
    As I said earlier and Daniel states in more detail, that is clearly an error which I doubt you'll find anywhere in AWS written documents. It doesn't help your general argument at all.
    AWS Mission: “Advancing the science, technology, and application of welding and allied joining and cutting processes worldwide, including brazing, soldering and thermal spraying.”

    They should take more care to get it right. However, there are probably several thousand more serious errors that you could focus on.


    Yes, just as one does not need to understand any of the workings of engines, transmissions, ignition systems, or other parts of a vehicle's drive train, if something goes wrong with it while away from "civilization", the more one knows the better the chance he can solve the problem and not be stranded for hours, or worse.
    Just as in welding, the more you understand the process, the better able you are to rectify problems when they arise.


    Thanks for the thoughts everyone, I think I should put this to bed now.

    Jack

  6. Likes NotaVegetarian liked this post
  7. #31
    Join Date
    May 2022
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    71
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terminology, polarity and penetration

    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.

  8. #32
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Mount Tabor VT
    Posts
    8,631
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terminology, polarity and penetration

    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.
    An optimist is usually wrong, and when the unexpected happens is unprepared. A pessimist is usually right, when wrong, is delighted, and well prepared.

  9. Likes Eelspike, Munkul liked this post
  10. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brethren, Mi
    Posts
    3,284
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terminology, polarity and penetration

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

  11. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brethren, Mi
    Posts
    3,284
    Post Thanks / Like

    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.

  12. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2022
    Location
    Sugarland, GA
    Posts
    396
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terminology, polarity and penetration

    Interesting read.
    Retired Old Guy

    Hobart 210
    Lincoln AC/DC 225/125
    Evolution 14” Saw

  13. #36
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Location
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Posts
    154
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terminology, polarity and penetration

    Quote Originally Posted by Eelspike View Post
    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

  14. Likes Eelspike liked this post
  15. #37
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    3,914
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terminology, polarity and penetration

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Ryan View Post
    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

  16. #38
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Location
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Posts
    154
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terminology, polarity and penetration

    Quote Originally Posted by Willie B View Post
    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

  17. #39
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Location
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Posts
    154
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terminology, polarity and penetration

    Quote Originally Posted by 123weld View Post
    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

  18. #40
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Central California
    Posts
    4,208
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terminology, polarity and penetration

    Quote Originally Posted by 123weld View Post
    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.

  19. #41
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brethren, Mi
    Posts
    3,284
    Post Thanks / Like

    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.

  20. #42
    Join Date
    Apr 2022
    Posts
    79
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terminology, polarity and penetration

    Quote Originally Posted by 123weld View Post
    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!!!


  21. Likes NotaVegetarian, FastLeroy liked this post
  22. #43
    Join Date
    May 2022
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    71
    Post Thanks / Like

    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.

    Name:  PXL_20220518_120857965.jpg
Views: 108
Size:  84.3 KB

  23. #44
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Clovis California
    Posts
    6,348
    Post Thanks / Like

    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Eelspike View Post
    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.

    Name:  PXL_20220518_120857965.jpg
Views: 108
Size:  84.3 KB

  24. #45
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    3,914
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terminology, polarity and penetration

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Ryan View Post
    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
    Last edited by 123weld; 05-19-2022 at 01:02 AM.

  25. #46
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    3,914
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terminology, polarity and penetration

    Quote Originally Posted by StandarDyne View Post
    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"

  26. #47
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Central California
    Posts
    4,208
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terminology, polarity and penetration

    Quote Originally Posted by 123weld View Post
    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.

  27. #48
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Big Lake/Monticello MN
    Posts
    15,080
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terminology, polarity and penetration

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Ryan View Post
    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.


    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.
    Last edited by MinnesotaDave; 05-19-2022 at 02:20 PM.
    Dave J.

    Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance. ~George Bernard Shaw~

    Syncro 350
    Invertec v250-s
    Thermal Arc 161 and 300
    MM210
    Dialarc
    Tried being normal once, didn't take....I think it was a Tuesday.

  28. #49
    Join Date
    May 2022
    Posts
    6
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terminology, polarity and penetration

    Quote Originally Posted by Oldiron2 View Post
    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...

  29. #50
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Location
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Posts
    154
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terminology, polarity and penetration

    Quote Originally Posted by MinnesotaDave View Post
    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

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Page generated in 1,656,485,515.54828 seconds with 13 queries