Talk:Gas metal arc welding

message: I would like to add an outbound link to two great guides and resources that deal with the proper preparation and selection of material on tungsten electrodes. The link is at: www.diamondground.com/downloads.html. Do you feel that this would be appropriate?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.112.164.100 (talk) 21:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Valuable Links for Welding

message: To get this article featured, at least the following should be done:
*Add history section
*Get good images
*Add equipment section – torch, power supply, etc.
*Add sections on process variations: Globular, short-circuiting, spray, pulsed spray.  This should include differences like shielding gas used, type/thickness of metals that can be welded, positions, weld appearance, pros/cons, travel speed, learning curve, etc.
*Add quality section (possibly incorporate into individual process variation pages)
*Include info on joint design somewhere (maybe quality section)
*Include info on safety and common applications (maybe in an "Applications" section?)
*Explain MIG, MAG and MIG vs. MAG.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Velle (talk • contribs) 20:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: To-do

message: What's the matter...  you don't like my cubist representation of a nice finger-formed hand-held trigger-actuated MIG torch grip, with gold-inset name-brand logo?  What's wrong with you?  : )  Ya, I'll do something a little better with that...  I just tossed this off this afternoon, and didn't want to put time into other details before we could start talking about it. Which now we have.
So numbers are the way to go.  I'll leave you to fill in their technical description, and still others can translate easier too.  I'll also do a bit more work on the actual cut away (you can see that in the talk:Welding page.  Changing things around is quite easy, particularly views, perspective, angle, rendering and color..   that's why CAD is so cool.  Draw it once in 3D, the rest is kids play.  Didn't like my "cubes"...  you silly boy.
One other thing....   I would expect other people could pick up on this method of; draft, feedback, change, repost...   In this case it's not so important to me, but I don't want to keep posting "latest revisions" without being able to completely delete old versions of a draft that have been superseded.  (That's an important dynamic when moving any kind of draft and engineering paperwork around, as you know)  The best way to do it would be if I could simply "replace" an image with it's same simple name every time.  I personally don't care if the older one is dumped all together, but if the wiki commons system could date stamp, and reshuffle the image history backwards, that would be good for future generations in perpetuity.  Otherwise, any person working on an image, especially any future collaborative CAD work, (collaborative DXF's or DWG's in a wiki environment would be super cool) any person working on an image and replacing an older image would have to rename it every time.  I do suppose I could add a date/time stamp, but that really isn't the best solution if in the future, many people are working on the same thing simultaneously, and in different time zones.  
Basically...  What will happen with a wiki-commons filling up with half-baked or old, technical images?
:Yeah, sorry to be so picky about that handle :).  As for the images, yes, you can just replace the images by uploading a new one with the same name, which dumps the old one.  I think that you should just reupload the files over top of the last one, and then if you get one that is a major change, don't get rid of the old version, just name the new file something else.  If lots of different people are changing and renaming the image consistently, you can just send it through some sort of delete process, which I think is pretty easy.  Does that answer your question?
:As for collaborative CAD stuff, though not on a wiki, I know of one CAD package called Alibre that makes that possible. We used it in my engineering design class, and while it's definitely limited in its capabilities (it didn't take me long to find something it couldn't do with its extrusion tools; namely a phillips head screwdriver), it does allow for two people to be looking at the same CAD drawing at the same time and working on it together.  It's pretty cool. 
:Also, a minor note – it would be helpful if you signed and dated your talk page posts with ~~~~, since it helps other users keep track of the conversation and all that good stuff.  Just a tip. --Spangineer ∞ 00:48, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
Please let me know what you think.  If there are other ways the illistration could be viewed, modified, or otherwise improved... please let me know.  TTLightningRod 12:32, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a comment to the image page about my offer under GDFL.  Is that the way to do it?  Thanks for the compliment about my "know pretty much about this welding thing" smoke and mirrors.  However, I'm still a bit pensive about what I could really add to the text itself. I think you're doing a great job although I can sympathize with your request for more collaboration. Don't worry, if you say something that makes me want to puke, I'll let you know. TTLightningRod 17:38, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Collaborative WikiCAD... now that would be cool

message: The note structure is easy to navigate. Good formatting. hydnjo talk 02:15, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes

message: At what voltage is MIG welding usually done? ―BenFrantzDale 03:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to be around 15-30 volts, depending on the application.  It's normally set by the operator.  I'll try to find a more explicit reference and add that to the power supply section. --Spangineer (háblame) 04:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no usual voltage, instead it depends on the type of joint, the thickness of the metal, and the number of runs. Since there is no real measure of how much voltage you're putting into the weld (welding machines only have fairly ambiguous "settings" with the maximum being the exact rating of the machine, IE 180 volts) we can only guess roughly how many volts are going into it. To give you an idea though, if I was doing 10mm steel welds I'd probably go up to the maximum setting on a 180 volt machine (LOL even though it would cut out every 6 minutes and require billions of runs). For 1.6 mm steel, I'd use a 180 volt machine, and set the voltage on 2, 10 being the maximum, 1 being the minimum, and the amps on about 4 (totally meaningless to you or anyone else lol but that's what I'd set it at), putting the amps up a bit higher for a T fillet joint which absorbs more heat - that would be the absolute highest I'd go, and even then I'd have to go very careful to avoid burning through. If I was doing positional work like on a vertical surface, I'd put the settings up a wee bit so that I could move faster to stay ahead of the molten weld pool, without losing penetration. So you see it depends on the circumstances. Hope that answers your question. ▫Bad▫harlick♠ 00:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Badharlick is referring to amps, not volts. Measuring voltage is fairly precise, measuring amps, less so. As Spangineer noted, betweek 15-33 volts, Typically 16-19 volts for short-circuit and 26-33 volts for spray. Volts will be adjusted in that range for electrode diameter and type, vertical up/down, thickness of material, shield gas, flux-core, etc.. Volts are controlled directly on the welding machine, amps are controlled indirectly, primarily by the wire feed rate and size of the power source, less so by the electrode stickout, shielding gas and other parameters.Drillerguy 13:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voltage 

message: It is basic to advance turning the nozzle to the traveling direction and spraying the shielding gas from the nozzle. 
Therefore, I think that the traveling direction and the direction where a 
semiautomatic welding of this figure is formed the bead are wrong of it. 
Refer toWelding(Japanese version Wikpedia) for details. 121.200.137.77 16:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From the article: "The travel angle or lead angle is the angle of the torch with respect to the direction of travel, and it should generally remain approximately vertical. However, the desirable angle changes somewhat depending on the type of shielding gas used—with pure inert gases, the bottom of the torch is out often slightly in front of the upper section, while the opposite is true when the welding atmosphere is carbon dioxide."  The diagram is a modified version of an image appearing in a respected welding text; there's no problem. --Spangineeres (háblame) 16:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it a wrong traveling direction? 

message: "My name is shilton" doesn't really seem relavent to the topic at hand. Forar 19:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism removed 

message: It's been a long time since this article was promoted and it still looks good but needs some polish in order to meet the current FA criteria. I've added citation needed tags where there are none. There are questions about a self-published source used in the article. At least two of the books listed in the bibliography are not used for citing the article. One cite needs the its page number listed. Brad (talk) 10:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article concerns 

message: I believe the following statement to be plain wrong: "The automobile industry in particular uses GMAW welding almost exclusively." Resistance spot welding is very common in the automotive industry (see e.g. http://www.boschrexroth.com/country_units/europe/united_kingdom/en/industries/automotive/downloads/a_downloads/Bosch_Automotive.pdf), and I believe laser welding is also used on a regular basis. Thus I will remove that sentence from the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankid (talk • contribs) 10:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are right to make that removal, pending a source (which I doubt exists). --Spangineerws (háblame) 17:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fact checking 

message: Is it better to say that this mode is "the most undesirable" (which I've reworded to "least desirable" for clarity) or should we say, "It's simply broken and no-one should use it"?
I'm UK trained, so I've not read the US texts used as sources here, where it seems to be described as an early form of welding that was in common and widespread use until it was supplanted by something better. From my training, and my sources, the view is rather more against it. It's viewed here in one of two ways: an obscure form used only with care and specific need, on thin sheet - even then it has been superseded by machines that allow pulsing. Otherwise, and most commonly, it's seen as "amateur welding", the "pigeon crap" welds produced by DIY car restorers using CO2 gas, poor skill and machines that can't reliably deliver spray transfer mode.
There is a commercial difference between US & UK low-volume or hobby welders, such that it's expensive to use an argon based gas in the UK (because of cylinder rental charges), thus many instead use CO2, even for welds where this is quite inappropriate. The UK welding field is stratified into "CO2 globular welders" (who basically aren't to be trusted) and "competent welders" (professional or amateur). Although globular transfer must be covered, if only as a warning, I'm concerned that listing it first, and as if it's a credible choice in anything other than an obscure situation, is giving it a credence it shouldn't have. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Globular transfer 

message: This article just passed FAR ... , I am heading out for a long weekend.  Could you review this revert by ?  Were Maralia's edits saved?  Sorry, I haven't time to look closer.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw the revert, and am okay with it; I was on the fence about retaining the edit anyway. Maralia (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert 

message: The article states 'Newer helmet designs feature a liquid crystal-type face plate that self-darken upon exposure to high amounts of UV light.' 
My understanding is that in auto-darkening helmets the LCD only acts to reduce the visible light from the arc but the glass itself is a UV filter so if the battery/solar cell power supply fails the user may be dazzled but will not suffer arc eye from UV damage. Could someone who knows more about this check this? Stub Mandrel (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. The glass filters the UV, the active LCD filters the visible light, when needed.  Also the plate doesn't "self darken" (like photochromic sunglasses), there is an electrical circuit that measures the light level and controls the LCD panel, much more quickly. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Welding Eye Shields 

message: "Furthermore, because the use of compressed gases in GMAW pose an explosion and fire risk, some common precautions include limiting the amount of oxygen in the air and keeping combustible materials away from the workplace.(ref)(/ref)"
Considering the purpose of the compressed gases is to prevent oxidation, among other things, this is rather hard to believe. Argon and CO2 simply are not combustion hazards.  Potential explosion due to compromised container/control equipment, perhaps, but not combustion. Huw Powell (talk) 06:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd bit in "safety" section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gas metal arc welding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160816123118/http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/you-can-now-3d-print-with-metal-at-home to http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/you-can-now-3d-print-with-metal-at-home
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: IDK anything about the term "metal active gas (MAG) welding", but presumably it includes atomic hydrogen welding.  I intend to put a link to atomic hydrogen welding unless I see objections soon.CountMacula (talk) 21:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  metal active gas (MAG) welding mentioned as a subtype but never described 

message: Someone arc welding and any all Weldings . 157.39.65.88 (talk) 07:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  GSS WELDING  

message: The person who does welding is called a weldor.  The machine itself is called a welder.  That terminology difference was one of the first things taught when I started welding classes in the late 1950s.
:216.152.18.132 (talk) 01:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pedantry alert