[Simclardy]

.00051 cu ft of gas to fill 1 ft of 1/4 inch I’d tube. 15cfm of Argon will purge 29,411 ft of said pipe in 1 min.

I think you mixed up cfh and cfm.
My math could be wrong but here it is

I take the radius of 1/4" id pipe
0.125 and convert to feet ÷12=0.0104166667.
Now i find area p*r^2=0.0003408846
I take the area in feet and * by 1
And end with 0.0003408846 ft^3
I will go with 15cfh vs cfm
15÷0.0003408846=44,003.161187099

Now i devide by 60=733.386019785 per min
And devide again by 60=12.2231003297 per second

So lets say 12' per second.


Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Oscar]

Yea 15 CFM is what you would get from a 3-5HP 60-80 gallon air compressor, not a shielding gas tank, Quite different from CFH. 15 CFM = 900 CFH and as far as I know, no welding flowmeter can register that high,

This is where Simclardy's dimensional analysis shined through. ft³/hr is the correct dimensional term to take into consideration as was shown. Even then, when dealing with extreme problems, the calculations break down because the little things that don't add up to much in simple circumstances must be taken into account. This is where the work integral comes into play. W = ⌠ F dx, aka you need calculus to solve some problems in physics depending on the exactness needed of the solution.

[Poland308]

Ft a min or ft an hour doesn’t change the volume of the inside of the line. My dimensions were pulled from a tubing manufacturer site cause it was easy. Cfm was used cause my reference charts were already converting that for other stuff. Just like the numbers for the garden hose. I’ll leave some work for those who care to do the work.

[Simclardy]

Yea 15 CFM is what you would get from a 3-5HP 60-80 gallon air compressor, not a shielding gas tank, Quite different from CFH. 15 CFM = 900 CFH and as far as I know, no welding flowmeter can register that high, [emoji38]

This is where Simclardy's dimensional analysis shined through. ft³/hr is the correct dimensional term to take into consideration as was shown. Even then, when dealing with extreme problems, the calculations break down because the little things that don't add up to much in simple circumstances must be taken into account. This is where the work integral comes into play. W = ⌠ F dx, aka you need calculus to solve some problems in physics depending on the exactness needed of the solution.

Could you explain a little more? I never learned calculus in school, but i think you are saying some things are not linear. Like turbulance might have a greater impact at higher cfh rates?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Simclardy]

Ft a min or ft an hour doesn’t change the volume of the inside of the line. My dimensions were pulled from a tubing manufacturer site cause it was easy. Cfm was used cause my reference charts were already converting that for other stuff. Just like the numbers for the garden hose. I’ll leave some work for those who care to do the work.

Your right volume is volume. It just changes the time calculated. I did come up with a different volume but i thought i might have made a mistake. That's why i layed it out. I like to over think things. Lol

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Oscar]

Yea 15 CFM is what you would get from a 3-5HP 60-80 gallon air compressor, not a shielding gas tank, Quite different from CFH. 15 CFM = 900 CFH and as far as I know, no welding flowmeter can register that high, [emoji38]

This is where Simclardy's dimensional analysis shined through. ft³/hr is the correct dimensional term to take into consideration as was shown. Even then, when dealing with extreme problems, the calculations break down because the little things that don't add up to much in simple circumstances must be taken into account. This is where the work integral comes into play. W = ⌠ F dx, aka you need calculus to solve some problems in physics depending on the exactness needed of the solution.

Could you explain a little more? I never learned calculus in school, but i think you are saying some things are not linear. Like turbulance might have a greater impact at higher cfh rates?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Thats a good way to summarize it here. Basically, there are some factors at play that while negligible in some situations (or even easily estimated), cannot be otherwise calculated without the use of calculus (or perhaps a suitable sohisticated-enough numerical approximation method). I never took a class on fluid mechanics so I would not be able to say whether or not it would apply here, but my take is: even when the numbers work out for 29,000 or 44,000 ft, there are frictional losses to deal with due to the internal surface area of the pipe, which would be absent when displacing air at the tank without such a pipe connected to it. The longer the pipe the more the frictional losses add up, usually in a non-linear fashion, which is where calculus comes in to save the day. You can calculate the internal surface area of the mentioned super-long pipes to see just how many sq ft of surface area the gas would have to deal with, from a frictional stand-point.

[Poland308]

Quote
Could you explain a little more? I never learned calculus in school, but i think you are saying some things are not linear. Like turbulance might have a greater impact at higher cfh rates?

Right gas laws / principles are much different than fluids. We often think of them the same way, even describe them in the same terms but they react totally different. That’s why most critical pressure tests on piping or vessels is done with water( hydro test). The way water and air react if a system were to fail are much different than each other, gasses compress but water doesn’t. That stored energy of compression changes the way you need to calculate things. Steam tables, are easy way to learn many of these differences, steam in a pipe moves at hundreds of miles per hour, but condensed water flowing in the bottom of the same pipe at the same time may only be traveling a few ft a second. (1 mph = 88 ft a second). And it may not even be going the same direction as the steam.

[Bernard]

Thanks to everyone for their input.
Unfortunately I still have the same problem.
I just cannot get a clean puddle to start with.

I now have a new sophisticated welder r-tech digital 170 with a pedal and 4 different ac waveforms and frequency control.

However my welds look just the same what ever I do. I just get splatter!

Material Aluminium coupon 2 mm thick 100 mm x 50 mm
Cleaned with a wire brush then acetone immediately prior to the weld.

Torch #26 2.4 mm Ceriated Tungsten (gery) clean ground short point prior to each attempt.
Stubby gas lens with #6 cup

Machine setup.
Gas Argon tried 7.5 l/m and 10 l/m
Current control pedal, max 80 A
Frequency 120 Hz

This coupon photo shows:
Advanced squarewave
Soft squarewave
Trianglewave
Sinewave
AC/DC standard pulse
Advanced pulse
All with 7.5 l/m

[TraditionalToolworks]

That looks horrible, I've seen dogs that can $#!T better than that!

Are you sure it's not anodized? Oscar asked that early in the thread, but you didn't respond. In fact he asked twice. You say it's a 2mm coupon, where did you get it from?

Also, your tungsten in the OP is contaminated, can you show what you're using to get these fugly welds? What type of filler? Have you tried to run a bead with no filler?

I've never seen such fugly looking tig beads, that's a first for me.

I would start with basics, turn all pulse off, 90 amps, 6 seconds of postflow...make sure you're on AC and that you have your torch plugged into the negative, ground in positive. You should have pure argon at about 12-15 CFH with a #6 cup (make sure your flowmeter shows CFH, if not adjust accordingly). Set balance at 30%, don't use filler, just run a bead on the aluminum. Something is terribly wrong, you need to isolate it. Tungsten should stick out about 3/8". Make sure there are no gas leaks, torch is assembled properly. You gotta be able to do better than that. Remember a lot of this rests on you, we can't ensure you're using 100% argon, we can't ensure your tungsten is properly sharpened, we can't ensure that your stickout is correct or your torch angle is correct, we can't even ensure that you're not using anodized material or that you're not using 7075, and we can't ensure there are no gas leaks. If you want to figure this out, get busy and start checking that stuff.

> All with 7.5 l/m

What is this? Is this inch/minute for wire feed or liter/minuite for your gas?

> AC/DC standard pulse

What does this mean, you need to be on AC for aluminum. Turn the pulse off.

[cj737]

Toolie - 7.5 Liters per Min. He’s in Europe.

The material appears to be anodized. Buy some clean stock that you know the exact grade of. And increase your amperage to 120% of material thickness. Skip pulse. Choose Squarewave. Mash the pedal and weld a bead. Make sure your filler rod is 4043 or other suitable aluminum wire (5356, 4943, etc).

[TraditionalToolworks]

Toolie - 7.5 Liters per Min. He’s in Europe.

Yeah, I saw he was in the U.K. after I posted that, but so much of his post is convoluted I wasn't sure of many things. That should be ok then, if that's the case.

The material appears to be anodized.

He definitely doesn't give a definitive answer to that in any way.

Buy some clean stock that you know the exact grade of. And increase your amperage to 120% of material thickness. Skip pulse. Choose Squarewave. Mash the pedal and weld a bead. Make sure your filler rod is 4043 or other suitable aluminum wire (5356, 4943, etc).

Better yet, just get rid of the filler to see if he can weld a bead at all that doesn't look like the above. I do know dogs that can wet the toes of their $#!T bead in better, just by rubbing their @$$ harder.

[kiwi2wheels]

Does your machine have the hybrid DC- / AC+ option for aluminum ?

[Bernard]

The welds are just passes with the torch no filler.

I am sure the aluminium is not anodised.

There is definitely gas flow but I have no way to measure it at the torch.
7 l/m is approx 15 cfh

The aluminium stock was given to me by an engineering shop to practice with.

I have also tried 120 A but it looks the same on the top just wider and melts the back of the coupon.

I have also got some thicker 4 mm tote tray and some 3 mm and 1 mm sheet. I will try each of them.

Yes the machine does have ac/dc pulse its the trace at the top right in the photo.

This is just so frustrating !

[Bernard]

I have now tried 4 different types of Aluminium and it all looks the same.

I have double checked every setting and checked that gas is arriving at the torch.

I have tried both 1.6 mm and 2.4 mm (grey) ceriated Tungstens.

The only variable left is the Tungsten. I have ordered some lanthanated tungsten (blue) which should arrive on Monday.

If that doesn't work I don't know what else I can do.

[Oscar]

its the gas or gas delivery

[TraditionalToolworks]

I am sure the aluminium is not anodised.

Are you sure it's not 7000 series (i.e., 7075-T6) ??? I like to mill and turn it on the lathe as it's stronger, but you can't weld it.

Also, do you know if this aluminum came from the marine environment?

[BillE.Dee]

Are we sure that WE are using ARGON and not some mix that is mislabled? I would imagine that even a wrong alloy would give some kind of a weld even if it's wrong. That picture of his welds is showing "something wrong" for sure with LOTS of contamination.
Also, how far above the base material is the tungsten ? His statement says he has everything "right"...i.e. receiving gas at the torch and a ceriated tungsten. Is the base material laying on something that is giving off the contamination or is the base material impregnated with something?
pulling straws to figure it out.

[Oscar]

Are we sure that WE are using ARGON and not some mix that is mislabled? I would imagine that even a wrong alloy would give some kind of a weld even if it's wrong. That picture of his welds is showing "something wrong" for sure with LOTS of contamination.
Also, how far above the base material is the tungsten ? His statement says he has everything "right"...i.e. receiving gas at the torch and a ceriated tungsten. Is the base material laying on something that is giving off the contamination or is the base material impregnated with something?
pulling straws to figure it out.

The problem is something that he thinks is right but it really isn't. It's just that we can't tell because we're not there.

[77cruiser]

Do you have a different torch to try? I had a flex head & it was welding bad, turned out it had been flexed too many times. It must have been broken someplace & wasn't getting all the flow to the cup.

[G-ManBart]

I have now tried 4 different types of Aluminium and it all looks the same.

I have double checked every setting and checked that gas is arriving at the torch.

I have tried both 1.6 mm and 2.4 mm (grey) ceriated Tungstens.

The only variable left is the Tungsten. I have ordered some lanthanated tungsten (blue) which should arrive on Monday.

If that doesn't work I don't know what else I can do.

There is no way that switching to a lanthanated tungsten will fix what's wrong. There is something seriously wrong, and tungsten changes are relatively minor.

Do you have access to a known good bottle of 100% argon you can try? A while back I swapped bottles and as soon as I put the new bottle on my welds turned into rusting, bubbling caterpillars (mild steel). There was just a touch left in the first bottle so I hooked back to that one and my welds were fine again....simply a case of contaminated gas.

[BugHunter]

(1 mph = 88 ft a second).

88fps = 60mph.

Small detail I know...

[Bernard]

Thanks for the input.

I am able to weld steel perfectly with this set up.

The torch and welder are brand new.

I only have the one gas bottle and no access to another.
It comes from BOC the most reputable gas supplier in the UK.

I have tried 4 very different pieces of Aluminium stock and they all look the same.

I have tried getting really close to the metal (1 mm) with the Tungsten but that doesn't change anything, only the width of the weld. The welds in the picture were run at approx 2 mm separation. The arc never really focuses. On the videos I have watched you see the arc wander a little bit to start then as the cleaning takes place the arc focuses into the puddle. My arc never focuses but continues to wander. There is splatter almost like spitting fat from a frying pan when you put in a damp vegetable to cook. It does suggest contamination but then why are all my different samples behaving the same way. You can see on the picture that the cleaning is taking place as there is a white border to the weld.

The aluminium has never been near the sea to my knowledge. I live only 1 mile from the coast. I made sure to brush the surface well with a stainless steel wire brush then wipe off with acetone prior to making the weld.

I will get back with the results when I get the new Tungsten which is coming from a different supplier. Just trying to eliminate all the variables one by one.

[TraditionalToolworks]

I am able to weld steel perfectly with this set up.
...
I have tried 4 very different pieces of Aluminium stock and they all look the same.

IMO, your problem is your machine settings if you can weld steel.

Are you certain you have your machine set for AC? Above in the thread you mention, "AC/DC standard pulse", what does that actually mean? You need to be on AC to weld aluminum, torch needs to be in negative and ground in positive, balance set to 30%.

Can you confirm your machines is set like that?

EDIT: I'm looking at a picture of your machine on the Stahlwerk site. Your machine doesn't have pulse, AFAICT, you have the same pic I'm looking at in your OP.

Set your Gas pre time to 0.5.
AC Balance to -2.
Current to 90
Current Decay to 0.
Post flow to 6.
Set the rockers to 2T, AC, WIG.

If you welded steel you have the torch in negative (left, gas plugged in, pedal plugged in, ground in positive).
If you're not using the pedal, still leave it set for 2T and hold the switch down while you weld. Doesn't look like it comes with a pedal, but if you have one, use it. The only difference to weld steel is flip the rocker to DC. Please confirm you're on AC.

See this video:

iisCItrrqRo

[BillE.Dee]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIN4mU_GuRc.

found this on the stahlwerk out of the box welder. Perhaps it may relate to your machine.

can you find a neighbor who does welding to see IF the problem is in the machine?? Could be a ac/dc selector switch that is ferhoodled.

[G-ManBart]

Thanks for the input.

I am able to weld steel perfectly with this set up.

The torch and welder are brand new.

I only have the one gas bottle and no access to another.
It comes from BOC the most reputable gas supplier in the UK.

I have tried 4 very different pieces of Aluminium stock and they all look the same.

I have tried getting really close to the metal (1 mm) with the Tungsten but that doesn't change anything, only the width of the weld. The welds in the picture were run at approx 2 mm separation. The arc never really focuses. On the videos I have watched you see the arc wander a little bit to start then as the cleaning takes place the arc focuses into the puddle. My arc never focuses but continues to wander. There is splatter almost like spitting fat from a frying pan when you put in a damp vegetable to cook. It does suggest contamination but then why are all my different samples behaving the same way. You can see on the picture that the cleaning is taking place as there is a white border to the weld.

The aluminium has never been near the sea to my knowledge. I live only 1 mile from the coast. I made sure to brush the surface well with a stainless steel wire brush then wipe off with acetone prior to making the weld.

I will get back with the results when I get the new Tungsten which is coming from a different supplier. Just trying to eliminate all the variables one by one.

How long are you waiting with the torch in the same position, with the arc initiated, before moving? Generally speaking, you're going to start the arc and hold that position for a couple of seconds to get a pool started and that can be one of the biggest challenges when moving from steel to aluminum.

As Oscar said, try turning the machine up...100A, start the arc and then just wait until you get a puddle. If that takes too long, bump it up to 120A.